Total Emissivity of the Earth and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide: A Note from Nasif S. Nahle

Central to the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is the assumption that the Earth and every one of its subsystems behaviors as if they were blackbodies, that is their “emissivity” potential is calculated as 1.0. [1]

But this is an erroneous assumption because the Earth and its subsystems are not blackbodies, but gray-bodies. The Earth and all of its subsystems are gray-bodies because they do not absorb the whole load of radiant energy that they receive from the Sun and they do not emit the whole load of radiant energy that they absorb. [8] [9] [10]

Furthermore the role of carbon dioxide is misunderstood. According to AGW hypothesis, carbon dioxide is the second most significant driver of the Earth’s temperature, behind the water vapor, which is considered the most important driver of the Earth’s climate. [2] Other authors of AGW discharge absolutely the role of water vapor and focus their arguments on the carbon dioxide. [3]

What is the total emissivity of carbon dioxide? I will consider this question with reference to the science of radiative heat transfer.

Total Emissivity of the Carbon Dioxide – The Partial Pressures Method

In 1954, Hoyt C. Hottel undertook an experiment for determining the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide and the water vapor [6]. He found that the total emissivity was linked to the temperature of the gas and its partial pressure. As the temperature increased above 277 K, the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide decreased, and as the partial pressure (p) of the carbon dioxide increased, its total emissivity also increased.

Hottel found also that the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide in a saturated state was very low (Ɛcd = 0.23 at 1.524 atm-m and Tcd = 1,116 °C). [6]

As Hottel diminished the partial pressure of the carbon dioxide, its total emissivity also decreased in such form that, below a partial pressure of 0.006096 atm-m and a temperature of 33 °C, the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide was not quantifiable because it was almost zero. [6] [7] [8]

After Hottel’s experiment, in 1972, Bo Leckner made the same experiment and corrected and error on the graphs plotted by Hottel. However, Leckner’s results placed the carbon dioxide in a lower stand than that found by Hottel. [6] [7]

The missing part, however, remained at the real partial pressure of the carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere and instantaneous temperatures. Contemporary authors, like Michael Modest, and Donald Pitts and Leighton Sissom made use of the following formula to know the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide considering the whole emissive spectrum, at any instantaneous tropospheric temperature and altitude [6] [7] [8]:

Introducing 7700 meters as the average altitude of the troposphere and the real partial pressure of the atmospheric carbon dioxide (0.00038 atm-m), the resulting total emissivity of the carbon dioxide is 0.0017 (0.002, rounding up the number).

Evidently, the carbon dioxide is not a blackbody, but a very inefficient emitter (a gray-body). For comparison, Acetylene has a total emissivity that is 485 times higher than the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide.

After getting this outstanding result, I proceeded to test my results by means of another methodology that is also based on experimental and observational data. The algorithm is outlined in the following section.

Total Emissivity of CO2 – Mean Free Path Length and Crossing Time Lapse of Quantum/Waves Method

The mean free path length is the distance traversed by quantum/waves through a given medium before it collides with a particle with gravitational mass. The crossing time lapse is the time spent by the quantum/waves on crossing a determined medium; in this case, the atmosphere is such medium.

As the carbon dioxide is an absorber of longwave IR, we will consider only the quantum/waves emitted by the surface towards the outer space.

The mean free path length of quantum/waves emitted by the surface, traversing the Earth’s troposphere, is l = 47 m, and the crossing time is t = 0.0042 s (4.2 milliseconds). [9] [10]

Considering l = 47 m to know the crossing time lapse of quantum/waves through the troposphere, I obtained the crossing time lapse t = 0.0042 s. By introducing t into the following equation, we obtain the real total emissivity of the atmospheric carbon dioxide:

Ɛcd = [1-(e(t * (- 1/s))] / √π [9] [10]

Ɛcd = [1-(e(0.0042 s * (1/s))] / √ 3.141592… = 0.0024

Therefore, the total emissivity of the atmospheric carbon dioxide obtained by considering the mean free path length and the crossing time lapse for the quantum/waves emitted from the surface coincides with the value obtained from the partial pressures method:

Ɛcd 1= 0.0017 = 0.0017

Ɛcd 2 = 0.0024 = 0.0024

The difference is 0.0007, which is trivial in this kind of assessment.

Conclusions

In the introduction I asked: What is the total emissivity of carbon dioxide?

In this note I have calculated the real total emissivity of the atmospheric carbon dioxide at its current partial pressure and instantaneous temperature to be 0.002.

Clearly carbon dioxide is not a nearly blackbody system as suggested by the IPCC and does not have an emissivity of 1.0. Quite the opposite, given its total absorptivity, which is the same than its total emissivity, the carbon dioxide is a quite inefficient – on absorbing and emitting radiation – making it a gray-body.

Accepting that carbon dioxide is not a black body and that the potential of the carbon dioxide to absorb and emit radiant energy is negligible, I conclude that the AGW hypothesis is based on unreal magnitudes, unreal processes and unreal physics.

Acknowledgements

This blog post was inspired by Chapter 12 of the book ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon.

“This first catechism will be referred to in a later figure as the ‘Cold Earth Fallacy’, and it is based on the erroneous assumption that the earth’s surface and all the other entities involved in its radiative losses to free space all have unit emissivity. The second catechism has already been discussed: the contention that Venus’ high surface temperature is caused by the ‘greenhouse effect’ of its CO2 atmosphere.”

[11.] Dr. Hertzberg is an internationally recognized expert on combustion, flames, explosions, and fire research with over 100 publications in those areas. He established and supervised the explosion testing laboratory at the U. S. Bureau of Mines facility in Pittsburgh (now NIOSH). Test equipment developed in that laboratory have been widely replicated and incorporated into ASTM standards. Published test results from that laboratory are used for the hazard evaluation of industrial dusts and gases. While with the Federal Government he served as a consultant for several Government Agencies (MSHA, DOE, NAS) and professional groups (such as EPRI). He is the author of two US patents: 1) Submicron Particulate Detectors, and 2) Multichannel Infrared Pyrometers. http://www.explosionexpert.com/pages/1/index.htm

Reader Interactions

Comments

I’m a layperson so I can’t offer a critical opinion as to whether co2 is a black body or grey body, but an emissivity of 1 used by the IPCC ( if true )and your calculation oif 0.002 seems extreme to say the least.

The IPCC has told lies and exaggerated info about this mad cult for years so I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re right.

But the number calculated by yourself and others for the last 50 years is only one five hundredth of the ipcc calculation, this if true is truly bizarre.

Anyhow silly Tim told us yesterday that we may not see a change for at least a thousand years even if the whole world stopped all emissions today.
Sounds like a real good investment no dividend for scores of generations into the future, I can just see that working. The politics of it could be a little hard to handle though,wouldn’t you say?

The corroboration of Nasif’s two calculations is impressive. .002 looks like a good ballpark figure for CO2 absorptivity/emissivity. This means IPCC claims are enlarged 500-fold. This looks about right by what I can see out the window right now. I hope that this line of investigation is picked up by other qualified climatologists to use as a battering ram on the IPCC ‘science’ brigade

Regarding politics, I’m not so good on that; however, I will quote a Mexican professor, Moises Santos Mena, who wrote in a news letter:

“Education is not to replace politics, as well as politics cannot take the place of wisdom.”

If you read any AGW article or the IPCC AR4 report, you’ll find the absence of e term (total emissivity); for example, in the equation correctly written q = e (A) (σ)(Ts ^4 – Ta ^4), they write q = (σ)(T^4), which is the equation for the net transfer of thermal energy of blackbodies. The absence of e is because they consider it is 1.0.

The same happens with the formula to obtain the normal intensity of thermal energy transfer, which must be written I = (e (A) (σ)(Ts ^4 – Ta ^4)) / A. Again, if they eliminate the total emissivity factor, is because they consider it is 1.0, that is, the emissivity of a blackbody.

To calculate the thermal energy transfer coefficient, we must consider the total emissivity. If one doesn’t introduce it in the algorithm, the result will be exaggeratedly high. The correct formula is as follows:

h = (e (A) (σ)(Ts ^4 – Ta ^4)) / (A * ΔT)

The incorrect formula, if it was to be applied to gray bodies, would be:

h = ((σ)(T^4)) / (A * ΔT)

If we develop the incorrect formula, for a blackbody, the thermal energy transfer coefficient would be:

This result was proposed as the thermal energy transfer coefficient for being introduced in the formula for calculating the change of temperature caused by doubling the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. However, some researchers found it was not a real constant and have changed it many times. Other authors have left it as Arrhenius invented it, i.e. 5.35 W/m2 K.

“Central to the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is the assumption that the Earth and every one of its subsystems behaviors as if they were blackbodies, that is their “emissivity” potential is calculated as 1.0. ”

You can find these derivations in Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis, by Goody & Yung (2nd ed., 1989), Radiation and Climate, by Vardavas & Taylor (2007), A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation, Petty (2006) and any other decent atmospheric physics textbook.

In fact, you won’t find a different set of equations in any atmospheric physics textbook. They might be formulated a little differently but all of them have an emission term modified by emissivity.

And this is an emissivity which is not 1 and very strongly wavelength dependent.

This is why the only reference for Nahle’s ridiculous claim is a “critique” of atmospheric physics by Hertzberg, the author of a paper where he gets Kirchhoff’s law wrong. He equates absorptivity at solar wavelengths with emissivity at terrestrial wavelengths. Kirchhoff’s law – heat transfer 101 – says that emissivity = absorptivity at the same wavelength, or range of wavelengths.

If you want to learn about atmospheric physics you have to read textbooks written by people who understand atmospheric physics.. not critiques by people who haven’t got past Kirchhoff’s law, or blogs by people who rely on critiques by people who haven’t got past Kirchhoff’s law.

You can see in p472, for example, the discussion of the emissivity terms. This particular section is about how to parameterize emissivity because of the huge computing resources needed for line by line calculations. With 2.7M spectral lines in the HITRAN database some computational efficiency is often needed. Of course, line by line calculations are the standard by which band model calculations are tested.

Even though some readers here will find the paper too difficult to fully digest, I would recommend reading it through. Even a brief acquaintance with some of the concepts tackled in a paper like this will help in identifying the flawed ideas of the many people who write articles “demolishing” a subject they have not begun to understand.

I look forward to a future article on this blog where someone explains what is wrong with the radiative transfer equations as found in a textbook like Goody & Yung.

Thanks Nasif. I have made similar calculations and found a slightly higher value for the CO2 emissivity (still insignificant) but my calculation was less exact had some different assumptions. I assumed a height of 11km and just averaged the total pressure, the partial pressure of CO2, and the temperature (temperature and pressure reduce with height). See my post here http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2011/02/a-note-on-the-stefan-boltzman-equation/
Professor Hoyt Hottel was a outstanding chemical engineer see here http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/hottel-0926.html His work was based on real measurements concerning CO2 in combustion systems and in heat exchangers. There is no climate scientist (pseudo-scientists?) who has demonstrated any understanding of the engineering subject of heat transfer (or for that matter thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, kinetics or the associated mathematics). It has been demonstrated that all climate models give wrong results. The major reason for this is because those putting the models together have no understanding of the basic technologies and including relationships (eg CO2 and temperature or energy) which do not exist.
Thanks again. I would be pleased to meet you someday. Have a holiday and lecture tour in Australia.

And from Kirchhoff’s law, Absorptance = Emissivity (so long as we keep the same wavelength, or range of wavelengths)

So if Emissivity = 1, i.e., a “black body”, then Transmittance would be = 0.

There is nothing unique about this calculation, but you can see the equations which were used as well as the database of over 300,000 lines for CO2 line strengths & line widths from HITRAN.

If Nahle was correct that a blackbody assumption was used for all climate components then this calculation would show transmittance = 0 across the whole spectrum. It doesn’t.

This is the same database (HITRAN), and the same formula for absorptance that is widely used.

Once again I challenge the blog owner to produce an article that deals with real climate physics rather than made up climate physics, and to produce an article which critiques a textbook treatment of radiative transfer, such as the highly regarded Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis, Goody & Yung (1989).

I’d be happy to publish your answer the question: What is the total emissivity of carbon dioxide with reference to the science of radiative heat transfer.

And you may be interested to consider the following, received by email today:

“Nasif makes a VERY illuminating comment:
If you read any AGW article or the IPCC AR4 report, you’ll find the absence of e term (total emissivity); for example, in the equation correctly written q = e (A) (σ)(Ts ^4 – Ta ^4), they write q = (σ)(T^4), which is the equation for the net transfer of thermal energy of blackbodies. The absence of e is because they consider it is 1.0.

The same happens with the formula to obtain the normal intensity of thermal energy transfer, which must be written I = (e (A) (σ)(Ts ^4 – Ta ^4)) / A. Again, if they eliminate the total emissivity factor, is because they consider it is 1.0, that is, the emissivity of a blackbody.

To calculate the thermal energy transfer coefficient, we must consider the total emissivity. If one doesn’t introduce it in the algorithm, the result will be exaggeratedly high.

“Once again I challenge the blog owner to produce an article that deals with real climate physics rather than made up climate physics, and to produce an article which critiques a textbook treatment of radiative transfer, such as the highly regarded Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis, Goody & Yung (1989).

However, you have not demonstrated that the calculations in my article are wrong and that the carbon dioxide has not a total emissivity of 0.002, what would be expected for a serious scientific criticism.

You have received a statement by email which includes the amazing claim:

“If you read any AGW article or the IPCC AR4 report, you’ll find the absence of e term (total emissivity); for example, in the equation correctly written q = e (A) (σ)(Ts ^4 – Ta ^4), they write q = (σ)(T^4), which is the equation for the net transfer of thermal energy of blackbodies. The absence of e is because they consider it is 1.0.”

“Any AGW article” – citations?
“The IPCC AR4 report” – which page? It consists of 1000’s of pages and most of it is a synthesis of papers from the fields in question. You rarely find an equation there. You do find 100s of references to papers which cite equations – or refer to earlier papers in the field with equations.

Please ask your emailer to provide proof.

But I have to confess I don’t know what they mean by AGW article. This could be anything.

If they mean atmospheric physics textbooks this claim is false. I can post up scanned pages of many textbooks to demonstrate the falsity of this claim.

If they mean published atmospheric physics papers this claim is almost certainly false, although I’m sure there are some ridiculous papers published somewhere.

You also say: “I’d be happy to publish your answer the question: What is the total emissivity of carbon dioxide with reference to the science of radiative heat transfer.”

Do you mean you would be happy to publish an article? What exactly are you thinking of?

You have made a false claim. “Central to the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is the assumption that the Earth and every one of its subsystems behaviors as if they were blackbodies, that is their “emissivity” potential is calculated as 1.0.”

I have provided evidence that your claim is false.

Prove your claim, or admit your mistake – don’t “move on”.

And just to keep things moving, while you are formulating your response I will scan some pages from textbooks. Tomorrow everyone will be able to see the evidence.

Once again an AGW alarmist is showing his clear lack of understanding of the technologies which are necessary for some of the complex issues involved in the assessment of climate. I use the term technologies because engineering is much more than science. There are the issues of instrumentation, measurement, the interrelation of electro-magnetic forces, fluid mechanics both in the air and the oceans, heat transfer by convection and phase changes as well as incoming solar radiation etc etc.
Sir, you are breathing out too much hot air containing CO2 which although beneficial and necessary for plant life (which feeds humans) has affected your mental capacity for clear thinking. Next are you going to pullout Karl Marx’s failure of economic policy to show that wasting money on some elitist dream is beneficial for the masses? (I suppose you will by pass that because you also have no understanding of economics or costs).
How do you explain that measurements that show CO2 lags changes in temperature in the short term- daily and seasonal, and longer term over 50 years and over 100’s of years.? How do you explains the measured data from satellites, radiosondes and ground stations outlined in Dr Noor Van Andel presentation to KNMI?
If you want to stoke your ego, post at Real Climate -they may even acknowledge you as one of the “team”

Hold your horses, yours is not a valid method to calculate total absorptivity. You cannot deduce total absorptivity by substracting transmittance. The result would be flawed because absorptance is not the same than total absorptivity. Total Absorptivity is a process function, whilie absorptance is a quantity that shows how efficiently a quantum/wave is absorbed by a particle.

You say:

And from Kirchhoff’s law, Absorptance = Emissivity (so long as we keep the same wavelength, or range of wavelengths)

Again, you cannot compare efficiency (absorptance is a quantity) with a process function like total emissivity. Your argument is wrong.

You say:

So if Emissivity = 1, i.e., a “black body”, then Transmittance would be = 0.

Again, your confussion has no limits. I’ll repeat it once: tranmittance is not the same than transmissivity, absorptance is not the same than absorptivity, and emittance is not the same than emissivity. Your arguments are wrong.

You say:

There is nothing unique about this calculation, but you can see the equations which were used as well as the database of over 300,000 lines for CO2 line strengths & line widths from HITRAN.

I agree, my calculations are not unique. My calculations are based on the work of many, many scientists and engineers who have worked honestly on this issue. If your heroes at HITRAN models are as wrong as you are on confunding total emissivity with the efficiency of a particle to emit a quantum/wave, well… your heroes at HITRAN computer model are as you are, WRONG.

By the way, the total absorptivity of the carbon dioxide is 0.002, while its efficiency to capture a quantum/wave is 0.85, which takes the carbon dioxide out of the game:

You have made a false claim. “Central to the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is the assumption that the Earth and every one of its subsystems behaviors as if they were blackbodies, that is their “emissivity” potential is calculated as 1.0.”

No, my claim is true. Read from the book “The Physics of Climate” by Oort and Peixoto. page 118:

“Assuming that there is a balance between the amount of solar energy received and the amount of energy emitted by the earth as a whole and that the earth radiates as a black body…”

You say:

I have provided evidence that your claim is false.

Again, my claim is not false. Just tell me what the emissivity of carbon dioxide is introduced by Ramanathan and Coakley in their article

You say:

Prove your claim, or admit your mistake – don’t “move on”.

I have proven that my claim is true. Just tell me the emissivities introduced by your authors. I do want that you find where your error is when you consider that your authors are considering total emissivity and that “their” total emissivities coincide with the emissivity obtained by observation, experimentation and theory. If you cannot tell me what those emissivities are, then you are wrong on claiming that my claim is false.

You say:

And just to keep things moving, while you are formulating your response I will scan some pages from textbooks. Tomorrow everyone will be able to see the evidence.

It would be very interesting to see how your authors speculate on the total emissivity of carbon dioxide. Please, don’t cherrypick phrases and sentences as you did in your blog by showing pages of books with ambiguos sentences.

That isn’t proving your claim. That is one quote from a book giving some insights via simple models into how the climate system works.

And also it makes an assumption which works pretty well for simple models as the emissivity of the earth’s surface is close to 1. The longwave emissivity of the ocean, for example, which covers over 70% of the earth, is about 0.96.

I see the childish comments of some commenters. Not much point responding to those. I hope that other readers who don’t comment might be interested in finding out what climate science actually believes rather than a parody of it.

But if this is a place only for people to tell each other stories about how climate science knows nothing I can understand that. And I will be happy to not interrupt in future.

Perhaps the blog owner and the usually silent commenters can respond on this question.

And also it makes an assumption which works pretty well for simple models as the emissivity of the earth’s surface is close to 1. The longwave emissivity of the ocean, for example, which covers over 70% of the earth, is about 0.96.

It is not the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide, but the emissivity of the ocean. The emissivity of the surface has been measured, not assumed, and it is 0.82.

Take a look at the extract I scanned from Petty’s book.

I have read it long time ago and I didn’t find what is their number for absorptivity. No where in their calculations. What the reason is?

By the way, remember that emittance is not the same than emissivity, absorptance is not the same than absorptivity and transmittance is not the same than transmissivity.

You say:

Does this assume the emissivity of the atmosphere = 1?

Do the reverse calculation and you’ll find they used 1 as the total emissivity.

Claiming “cherry picked” means you just don’t like the answer.

Well you have demonstrated you’re cherry picking, not me. It’s a trivial issue that has nothing to do with my article.

You say:

Do you believe the other books which derive the Schwarzschild equation are any different? After you comment on Petty’s book I will scan the others if you give a proper response.

Tell the tale, I mean show their numbers. Tell me what the total emissivity that the other authors are assigning to the carbon dioxide. This is the topic of my article, so you have to show your numbers, as I showed mine.

Are you claiming that Ramanathan & Coakley also believe the emissivity of the atmosphere = 1?

Wow! I don’t and cannot know what they believe… Sorry, this is a pseudoscientific question that I cannot answer; I’m not a diviner. 😀

What I can assure you is that Ramanathan and Coakley are not giving any magnitude for the total absorptivity or the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide.

I don’t know why they decided not to give the ciphers… Sorry.

You then ask me what Ramanathan & Coakley provide as the emissivity. Can’t you read the paper and understand it?

Well… If you understand what the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide is given by Ramanathan and Coakley, tell me the cipher because I don’t find it anywhere in their paper and I am a scientist, not a diviner.

You don’t understand the Schwarzschild equation do you?

That question is addressed to yourself, not to me. You’re doing too many assumptions on what I know, what I understand, what I think, etcetera, etcetera… Yours is not science.

Show me the numbers. But first read the following AGW articles and tell me where did they applied the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide? Don’t forget to read the link to the IPCC report:

have also posted up 2 pages from Radiation & Climate, Vardavas & Taylor (2007) below the original comment at the bottom (currently) of Understanding Atmospheric Radiation and the “Greenhouse” Effect – Part Six – The Equations.

They don’t mention any quantity for the total emissivity of carbon dioxide in their article. Sorry, but you’re off topic.

I ask you once again: what is the total emissivity of carbon dioxide given by your authors?

In fact Arthur says : “Emissivity is assumed to be 1 everywhere;” [page 3 and elsewhere]; this is essential for calculation of the greenhouse effect as expressed in the difference between Teff (t) and T4ave, is it not?

As I see it Nasif is pointing out that assumption is wrong in respect of the CO2 molecule; are you saying CO2 is a black body?

Thanks for your offer, but I cannot accept the Nobel Prize because it is the work of other scientists. Thank you, anyway.

Do you need that I explain again that faked experiment? I have done it in a previous blog. Please, read my answers. Otherwise, you’ll fall from my grace. 🙂

Show me that the calculations are wrong and that the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide has been proven to be higher than 0.002 under the current partial pressure of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

That’ll be your task from now on. I won’t answer any one of your posts if you don’t do this.

Well done Nasif and S of D,
You have highlighted yet again that we have definitely NOT “settled the science” on CO2 AGW.
There are still too many variables that continually mess up the models.
Maybe manmade CO2 is an important factor, maybe it isn’t. There are patterns that ‘indicate’ it might be but there are also other patterns and other physical contributors that ‘indicate’ that it might not be.
It is certainly way too early to claim absolute certainty and therefore way too early to justify taxing everybody and creating a whole new (possibly false) economy around it.
The one thing I have noticed in the language of AGW science is a lot of reliance on words like ‘possibly’ ‘may’ ‘indicates’ ‘therefore may’ and numerous other similar words and phrases.
It’s OK, it just reinforces the fact that we still have a long way to go before the “science is settled” .
Can’t you guys who are genuinely trying to research climate tell the politicians, the bureaucrats, the brokers and the bankers to go away? (That is a very polite euphemism)
The media frenzy that is being stirred up around this topic can’t possibly be helping you can it?

The reason the various authors don’t quote a number for total emissivity of CO2 is because it is contained within the equations.

Why do they have to pull out this one number?

For you?

Because you don’t understand the fundamentals of radiative transfer?

There is no assumption about the emissivity of CO2. The HITRAN database assembled by spectroscopic professionals over a few decades is the source.

Each line of the 300,000+ lines has a line strength & line width measured at 296K and surface pressure. And a whole list of other parameters.

The emissivity of a layer of the atmosphere = absorptivity of the atmosphere at the same wavelength. (Kirchhoff’s law).

The emissivity at a given wavelength = 1 – exp(-∫σn(s).ds), where s is the path length, n is the number density and σ = capture cross section.

To calculate the emissivity of a section of the atmosphere requires using the density of that section & the path length and then integrating the expression over all wavelengths where CO2 emits/absorbs.

Knowing the emissivity of the whole atmosphere for one molecule isn’t a particularly useful value because to calculate the radiative transfer through the atmosphere requires solving equations of both absorption and emission – which is Schwarzschild’s equation.

But keep on making your claims. Never mind they aren’t true. If atmospheric physics professionals didn’t quote a particular number that is important to you because you don’t really understand the subject, then clearly these people must all have assumed that the atmosphere is a blackbody.

And for Nahle’s enthusiastic readers – if Nahle says climate scientists have made an absurd assumption then he must be right. No need to prove it.

Why bother checking in a textbook or a paper? Skeptics don’t need to do that.

In science, experimentation, careful observations and repeatibility are the essence of the theories.

I don’t do it too well in politics and economy, but my work is only based on what has been systematically well proven. If sometime I make a mistake, I am prompt on amending it. This time, the results of my calculations have been demonstrated repeated times experimentally, through observation and theoretically, hence my confidence on the results.

As always, SoD resorts to distracting practices that take the readers to other off topic issues and to promote his website.

He is busy trying to find an error in my article, NOT RELATED to the science by it contained, but to issues that have nothing to do with the assertions expressed in my articles. This is not the first time he does it, so I will make concentrate on the objective of my article.

It is true that AGW calculations are made without considering the real properties of gray gases, like the carbon dioxide, which total emissivity has been exaggerated up to make of it a black body with a total emissivity of 1.0. Other AGW authors say the carbon dioxide is a gray body, and they are okay on assuring it because it is true; however, those authors give false values to the total absorptivity and total emissivity of this gas.

I am giving results from algorithms that have been obtained from observation and experimentation, so those algorithms are scientifically valid. My results are real because it is what has been observed in the real world and corroborated through experimentation. The carbon dioxide, at its current density in the atmosphere and at normal ambient temperatures is 0.0017 (0.002, if the cipher is rounded up).

This is not an assumption like the fabrications of AGW hypothesizers. There is no one paper, article or book written by the AGW proponents where this very important value is given. I suppose that the reason is as follows:

The formula to calculate the amount of thermal energy transfered by radiation from one system is q = e (A) (σ)(Ts^4 – Ta^4)

Where q is the net flux of power transferred from the system with temperature Ts, A is the area considered for the calculation, generally 1m^2, σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant (5.6697 x 10^-8 W/m^2 K^4) and e is the total emissivity of the system, in this case, the surface of the Earth, which is 0.82, as it has been carefully measured, and Ta is the environment temperature. If we have a surface temperature of 40 °C and an environmental temperature of 20 °C, the amount of energy transferred from the surface to the air would be:

The remainder of the absorbed energy incomming from the Sun is transferred to the subsurface materials and towards other systems, evaporation for example.

To know how much of that energy is emitted by the carbon dioxide, we consider the same formula, but now introducing the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide, i.e. 0.002, which is the same than the total emissivity of such gas, and eliminating the temperature of the surface because the thermal energy transfer always happens from the warmer to the cooler system:

q = 0.002 (1 m^2) (5.6697 x 10^-8 W/m^2 K^4) (293.15 K)^4 = 0.837 W

And this is the reason by which AGW proponents don’t like to talk on total emissivities and don’t give clear numbers about it.

As you can see, this is not the issue brought in by SoD, but other very different issue related with what I said about the AGW proponents taking the emissivity of carbon dioxide as 1.0, which is true.

SoD has not given a single quantity and he has not demonstrated that my calculations are wrong. Instead of it, he is distracting your attention to other issues that have nothing to do with the science of heat transfer. Now he says that the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide is not important, the same as he said on his blog that the second law of thermodynamics is not valid, the same as AGW proponents say that the thermal energy capacity is not important, etc.:

“Knowing the emissivity of the whole atmosphere for one molecule isn’t a particularly useful value because to calculate the radiative transfer…”

“ Therefore, by extending his treatment to the perfect reflector, Kirchhoff is inadvertently jumping from one form of cavity radiation (case 1: the concave mirror, object radiation) to another (case 2: the perfect absorber, blackbody radiation) when the covering on opening 3 is changed. At that moment, the cavity moves out of equilibrium. Thus, Kirchhoff’s proof is invalid.

“The fallacy with Kirchhoff’s argument lays not only in the need for a special material in the second plate, c, as so many have hinted [9–11]. The most serious error was that he did not consider the reflection from the plates themselves. He treated the reflection as coming only from the mirrors placed behind the plates. But this dealt with the problem of transmission, not reflection. As a result, Kirchhoff ignored the reflection produced by the surfaces of the plates.

By Pierre-Marie Robitaille, Ph.D. Professor of Radiology and Chemical Physics. The Ohio State University

In the next tutorial article, the authors say what the objective of Kirchhoff’s Law is -to demonstrate that the emissivity of a system is the same than its absorptivity, which is what I said in my article (BOLDS ARE MINE):

Good for you Nasif,
We need the science and, as I’ve said repeatedly, there will be no one happier than us farmers when the climate puzzle finally gets solved and scientists can confidently and accurately predict weather cycles and weather patterns.
I think you may all be getting closer, but you’re not there yet.
It does appear however that Nasif has nailed down that pesky emmissivity problem that is obviously messing with the AGW CO2 climate models.
I still would like to see those politicians, bureaucrats, brokers and bankers just leave you alone.
The frenzy and hysteria they have created can’t possibly be helping.
Keep up the good work.
You too SoD. (or is it indeed Luke?)
I’d be willing to bet that, as usual, you have all got important parts of the best answer.

Thankyou for your kind offer of March 26th, 2011 at 10:15 pm to publish an article about the emissivity of CO2.

But I see that Nahle is determined to ignore what is in plain sight – at least to someone who can read an equation.

But none of your regular commenters are able or willing to chase him up on this most simple of points.

If Nahle and all of your commenters want to claim the opposite of what is in plain sight because they like Nahle’s claim then I don’t think anyone here is interested in finding the real value of emissivity.

So there is little point in me doing a complex calculation of emissivity – which will require an integration across 300,000+ spectral lines.

Nahle, cheered on by the usual commenters, will just claim “that’s not right, it’s different from my result and I am right”.

For anyone interested at least in finding out what climate science says rather than the parodies presented here, you know the address.

Gee whiz Luke,
For someone who proclaims credibility through publications you are a master at missing the point.
I don’t think I can even be bothered explaining that to you.
I have to admit I am disappointed. I know it doesn’t emanate from a lack of intelligence.
What’s up?

Hang on SoD, I posed you a legitimate question about CO2 emissivity in the context of Smith’s paper, and since you are not going to do a LBL integration how about looking at this already completed one:

Debbie; how do you come to know anything about the topic here? The point lately has been Nasif’s credibility with this article on CO2 emissivity. I meant to comment before the weekend but got too busy however SoD’s last post shames me a little.

Firstly having known and worked with a number of professional mathematical gurus in the physics arena I have to say most don’t blow their own trumpets for the sake of it. The odd one or two delighted in put downs at every chance till it was boring. The others were generally very helpful with the calculus as required for the job, control systems engineering where bright sparks kept illuminating paths for the plodders.

Even now I can recall enough of it to say in this case our Nasif has simply plucked bits from this and that stream then cobbled them together with frightening glee to satisfy a very dubious and very private project.

Science of Doom,
“If Nahle and all your commenters want to claim the opposite of what is in plain sight”…….
What is in” plain sight” Science of Doom is that a 1978!!!!! textbook by Ramanathan etc. assumes wrongly a value of 1.0 for the emissivity of CO2 and this CONVENIENT oversight in the equations has be perpetuated over the global warming hysterical years through to 1989!! Goody and Yung. and nobody until today has really got to grips with this. Judging by the number of comments you make it appears to me Nasif has severely rattled your cage,and you decievers are still trying to hide the decline ; ie 1.0 downwards.
Luke,
Gimme a break,
1) Yes Nasif deserves a Nobel.
2)Camera trick, You AGWers will stop at nothing . 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

SOD is a lawyer by the way, which shows in the way he reasons and puts his arguments. So is Cohenite, come to think about it.

This style might be ok in a courtroom but it’s quite different to thinking via the scientific method. Much of the muddle in climate science comes from those who are trained in the physical sciences – and I don’t regard mathematics as a physical science, let alone a scientific discipline – it’s more a symbolic language than science but does have a similarity in that its axioms are always “proven” to be true, and not falsified by experiment.

Re my comments above, Nasif deserves an explanation and it goes like this. From a long association with communications and the electro magnetic spectrum in general I say it’s useful to assume a theoretical black body for most approximations where actual measurements are difficult. Finding something much less than one is a bit of a gob stopper so I go fishing.

Louis, if you are right that SoD is a lawyer, it explains why he has no understanding of heat transfer or any other of the technologies such as thermodynamics.
He shows his ignorance and bluster when he says “So there is little point in me doing a complex calculation of emissivity – which will require an integration across 300,000+ spectral lines.” There are tables, equations, and graphs to determine the emissivity of 100% CO2 gas in a saturated state as Nasif has explained. As Nasif says in his earlier post “There are three bands of absorption of IR radiation by the carbon dioxide, i.e. 2.6 µm, 4.3 µm and 14.77 µm.” -here http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2011/03/recycling-of-heat-in-the-atmosphere-is-impossible/
This then needs to be adjusted for the amount present – I quote from Perry’s Chemical Engineering Handbook (section 5 written by Prof. Hoyt Hottel) “The contribution of Ɛc to the emissivity of a gas containing CO2 depends on the gas temperature Tc, on the CO2 partial pressure-beam length product Pc L and to a lesser extent on the total pressure P.” “The gas absorptivity alpha c equals the emissivity when the absorbing gas and the emitter are at the same temperature.” When the emitter surface temperature T1 is higher the absorptivity is the square root of the ratio Tc/T1 multiplied by Ɛc which is then determined at T1 instead of Tc.
Check up on my earlier post here http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2011/02/a-note-on-the-stefan-boltzman-equation/ The absorptivity of CO2 in the atmosphere is insignificant (as shown by Nasif and calculated by myself) and that is why Miskolczi (as referenced by Cohenite above) and Dr Noor Van Andel here http://climategate.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/CO2_and_climate_v7.pdf find from measurements that CO2 in the atmosphere does not contribute to temperature changes of the atmosphere at the earths surface.
Heat is mainly transfered from the surface (land and ocean) to the atmosphere by convection and evaporation. At the top of the atmosphere heat is lost to space by radiantion from CO2, water vapor and clouds. As Van Andel indicates CO2 is responsible for cooling not heating. The lack of heating of CO2 also fits in with CO2 content in the atmosphere lagging temperature changes which are to a large extent due to sea (ocean) surface temperatures changes.
Mack above seems to have hit on an oversight.

“If Nahle and all of your commenters want to claim the opposite of what is in plain sight because they like Nahle’s claim then I don’t think anyone here is interested in finding the real value of emissivity.”

If it is “plain” as you say, tell me your numbers of total emissivity of the carbon dioxide.

“From a long association with communications and the electro magnetic spectrum in general I say it’s useful to assume a theoretical black body for most approximations where actual measurements are difficult. Finding something much less than one is a bit of a gob stopper so I go fishing.”

Yes, it is for we have an idea on what is happening in a given physical process; however, it is by far better to use real ciphers and to obtain real results. That’s the reason of experiments, like those performed by Hottel, Leckner and Lapp.

I introduced real values in the equations, especially, those constants obtained from experimentation by five physicists along instantaneous magnitudes from NASA, NOAA and Universities from USA and Europe.

I have to tell you that I started these investigations in 2005, when I found that Hoyt Hottel and others found the emissivity of the carbon dioxide at its real partial pressure and Earth’s temperature was not measurable because it was almost zero.

The equation that I applied was developed by Hottel, Sarofim, Brosmer, Tien and Edwards, through different works, and was adopted by Modest, Ludwig and other colleages recently. The formula applies to the sum of all bands of absorptivity/emissivity of the carbon dioxide.

2. Carbon dioxide has not a total emissivity of 1.0 or a near black body emissivity; those are AGW fabrications.

3. According to Kirchhoff Law, the total absorptivity of the carbon dioxide equals its total emissivity. Thus, the total absorptivity of the carbon dioxide is 0.002.

4. The formula applied for this assessment is scientifically valid and adheres to the real world, not to hypothetical black bodies.

5. The total emissivity of gray gases -which are the real gases of our atmosphere- are the esscence of any calculations and investigations on thermal energy transfer.

6. According to Physics Laws, WE CANNOT DEDUCE the amount of thermal energy transferred from a system towards another system IF WE DO NOT KNOW THE TOTAL EMISSIVITIES AND TOTAL ABSORPTIVITIES OF THE SYSTEMS IMPLIED IN A GIVEN PROCESS OF THERMAL ENERGY TRANSFER. Trying to do it without considering the amount of energy that a system is able to absorb or to emit is false science.

7. Everywhere you read AGW arguments, the total emissivity and total absorptivity of carbon dioxide are hidden from the readers. I do not know the reason, although it would seem to be quite obvious.

Nasif re points 5,6 & 7 I say there is nothing new under the sun except AGW and we all got round to understanding that with physics going way back. You may wish to check up on the very important furnace work again.

I don’t have to worry because I know my calculations are based on real measurements, not on computational models, as the one presented in the paper you provided, where we can input any quantity we wish. For example, Staley and Jurica are using their own guesses about the emissivity of the carbon dioxide, and reject other guesses from other authors for “being unrealistic” (page 351).

Additionally, Staley and Jurica always apply the Stefan-Boltzmann formula for black bodies, i.e. σT^4 and apply FCO2↓ as a divisor, not as a correlation factor. Instead of it, Staley and Jurica apply a constant that they assign as b, that is F↓(CO2) / bσT^4

Staley and Jurica wrote:

“The most frequently quoted (e.g., Haltiner and Martin, 1957) value of b is 0.185, which is apparently due to Robinson (1947).” So Staley and Jurica are guessing values, not obtaining them from real experimentation…

Few lines ahead, S&J say that “Kondrat’yev (1965) has argued that 0.185 is unrealistic…”; however, this value is introduced by them in their calculations. This is an obvious manipulation of magnitudes. In other words, this is computational pseudoscience, not real science.

A bit latter on their paper, Staley and Jurica talk about the emissivity of carbon dioxide, including a graph, where they show the relationship between partial pressure of carbon dioxide and its emissivities. The minimum partial pressure they considered is 0.098692 atm, which would be if the carbon dioxide concentration were 98692 ppmV, or 165.85 grams per cubic meter… This is an unrealistic magnitude because the real concentration of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 0.69 grams per cubic meter. The latter gives a partial pressure of the carbon dioxide of 0.00038 atm.

On the other hand, for their computational models, Staley and Jurica (page 352) consider carbon dioxide emissivities of 0.191, 0.182 and 0.173, which correspond to partial pressures of 0.999753269 atm, 0.829015544 atm and 0.700715519 atm. Again, the real partial pressure of the carbon dioxide in the current atmosphere is 0.00038 atm; those ciphers pintroduced by Staley and Jurica are unrealistic with respect to the reality of the current atmosphere.

In conclusion, Staley and Jurica paper confirms what I have said in my article, that AGW proponents exaggerate the total emissivity of carbon dioxide to make it fits with their idea.

Regarding the Lallemant, Sayre and Weber’s paper, let’s make a deal. I will bought the article, but you have to get the compromise of giving me back the 61 bucks (31 x 2 US dollars) if I find a single error in their calculations or if I demonstrate that it has nothing to do with the real atmosphere. If I fail on demonstrating it, you won’t have to giving me back my dollars. Deal?

Oh, Luke! Again, haven’t you read my article? Well, you don’t wish to got the truth. My article doesn’t deal with GCMs or any of the kind, but on the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

My assessment has nothing to do with hypotheses or ideas; my assessment is taken from reality, reality, reality, reality… Got it? Is reality irrelevant and the demonstrated AGW pseudoscience relevant?

Additionally, read my post to Gavin, four posts above this one, where I demonstrate with scientific data that the model of Staley and Jurica (:)) is completely out of reality. Want another demonstration?

Nasif;
The S&J partial pressures are about 2000X too high! That would certainly help explain why the emissivity guesstimates are 500X too high, too, wouldn’t it?

BTW;
Your English is often a bit iffy. E.g.: use the word “number” or “figure” instead of “cipher”. That doesn’t mean what you think. “A mathematical element that when added to another number yields the same number.” I.e., zero.

It seems that the real concentration, the real partial pressure, the real absorptivity and emissivity of the atmospheric carbon dioxide is irrelevant to Luke, Gavin and SoD. It seems they prefer AGW fabrications.

This article deals with the real total emissivity of the carbon dioxide, which is highly relevant to the science of climate because it is the esence of thermal energy by radiation. Thermal emissivity cannot be taken out from the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, and it cannot be excluded from any equation related with thermal energy tranfer by radiation.

Luke, SoD and Gavin cannot understand the following formula and the essential role of the total emissivity to construct any GCM that would pretend to deal with reality:

q = e (A) (σ)(Ts ^4 – Ta ^4)

Where e is total emissivity. How Luke dares to express his/her antiscientific statement that emissivity is irrelevant to the science of thermal energy transfer by radiation? That’s plain ignorance on thermal energy transfer and basic physics.

Heh! Sorry for my bad, bad English, and thank you for the grammar corrective advice; from now on I will use “figure” and “number” instead of “cipher”. 🙂

Regarding your assertion, yes, that’s the reason AGW guesstimates are disproportionately high, out of reality. Indeed, the results of the thermal sensitivity of the carbon dioxide are also unaccountably high, and the thermal energy transfer coefficient of carbon dioxide is unreal.

Physical equations must be clear, especially regarding units. The author cannot create units out from the nothingness. Besides, the author expresses C as if it was carbon dioxide; C is the symbol of Carbon (the element).

The authors of the linked essays have “delineated” the formula to obtain the radiative forcing of the carbon dioxide, which evidently is incomplete and wrong; nevertheless, actually, the formula is applied to know the change of temperature caused by a change of the concentration of CO2: ΔT = (5.35 W/m^2 K (LN (CO2/CO20)) / (4 (5.6697 x 10^-8 W/m^2 K^3) (T)^3).

Who should I trust, climate scientists or some genius posting to an obscure blog who claims that all these scientists have made a basic and obvious error? It’s a toughy.

He may be right (Oooh look, a purple pig flying backwards past my window!) but I’m putting my money on a “certain wind speed” moment.

I wonder if Nasif knows that when increasing wind velocity hits a certain speed it causes waves to become smaller? He could always ask Spamgled Drongo about it. His obvious talents would be warmly welcomed in this emerging field of physics.

I wonder if you know a bit of science and the scientific methodology, which is expressed in the scientific literature that I have profusely cited in my articles. There is a real physics. If your climatologists report false magnitudes, false constants, false algorithms and false concepts, then your climatologists are plainly wrong and we scientists are right.

RWFOH, you should understand that mine is not guesswork, but the results of experiments and observations from real nature made by many, many scientists and engineers of the world. Thanks!

Luke @ 12.25PM have you read the following http://climategate.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/CO2_and_climate_v7.pdf or are your eyes covered by an AGW blanket?
The evidence is there- CO2 has zero measureable effect on atmospheric temperatures. As Van Andel explains all models give (and have given on past data) the wrong projections for climate because they include CO2.

If you really want to put me in my place Nasif, publish your proposition in a peer reviewed journal and turn climate science on its head. When climate scientists collectively slap their foreheads and cry “Doh”, I’ll offer a grovelling apology for my audacity in doubting your insights.

I just can’t help but wonder why you wouldn’t publish your findings in something a little more highbrow? If, as you say, your proposition is supported with rigid scientific method, why preach to the converted (no amount of good science will ever convince some denialist zealots) and not set right those scientists urging immediate global action?

Something more prestigious and highbrow el gordo? How about “Nature” or “Science”?

So, all those climate scientists who write and reference literature on “radiative heat transfer” with regard to carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect have got it all wrong but you’re right Nasif?

It seems a little odd to me.

Don’t hide your light under a bushel, if climate scientists have misinterpreted the effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, they need to be challenged. Unless of course, you’re merely a shonk and exhibitionist flashing people in the darkened nether regions of cyberspace?

Having just now read the article and most of the comments I can confidently say that I understand about 5% of it.
One question though; If CO2’s absorptivity/emissivity is infinitessimal, how come so many people from our side claim that its near saturation point WRT absorption? You know, the whole doubling of CO2 only leads to a 1 degree rise thing?
Plus, why then didn’t I need a tanker full of CO2 to get the absorption spectra I got in 2nd year Chem at Uni?

That definitely shores up Dr. Miskolczi’s findings and might answer the very question he could not seem to answer. After his work he could see carbon dioxide had no affect on the radiative window’s optical thickness and therefore carbon dioxide has no affect on temperature but he could not seem to answer ‘why’. And, the jury’s still out on what exactly or in combination caused that slight warming over the last few decades but becoming clear, not carbon dioxide.

I’m intrigued by your calculation referred in the statement you made “crossing time lapse is the time spent by the quantum/waves on crossing a determined medium”. Could that be calculated for the cross time for Venus’s surface to TOA also? I can calculate the free path length given cross section, density, etc per dh but is that the path you use to determine the cross time, or more direct? Let me know later. That’s a bit over my head in qm, in fact, I never knew it was calculable at all. Learn something new every day. ☺

This guy is bunk – unpublished twaddle, running a mile not to publish, and furthermore as SoD has said does address the thousands of line by line transfer codes in real climate models. Just another sceptic running yet another line.

I’ve interrogated Mr Google and see that Nasif has been shopping his idea around since at least 2007 and it hasn’t been able to get traction in mainstream climate science. The deniersphere are building a wooden idol in his image though.

I don’t think the lack of peer acceptance for his idea is based on him getting practice at blogs like this or “approach(ing) this bloated, myopic, 30year old dragon of overfunded scientists from the underbelly” (tinfoil conspiracy hat detector just went off).

The scientific community hasn’t been rocked to the foundations by his claim. That’s good enough for me. Move on, nothing to see here.

Hi Nasif: most interesting and thanks for posting. I am not particularly interested in the debate about why you chose to publish your ideas here or in the refereed literature. It is sometimes true that methods and conclusions are so obvious that they will not get traction in specialist literature but get blocked out in the ‘climate science’ literature because they are counter-consensus. Your research would not survive refereeing in a top-class thermodynamics journal because the emmisivity of CO2 at low concentration and pressure is well known. That is just a fact of academic publishing and the power of editors and referees and the way certain gate-keepers come to dominate the research agenda. As a past editor and member of the editorial board in a top class international journal in an other field I can tell you what the editor of Nature or Climate Science would do with your paper. They would return it as unsuitable or toss it out to a first time referee – young academic – who desperate to avoiid being on the wrong side of a ‘consensus’ would reject it with a damning critique attached.

But back to the point of your study. My specialist area is time series modelling, econometrics and so forth. ‘Climategate’ triggered me into looking at the fundamentals: can changes in ocean/air temperatures be explained by variations in atmospheric Co2 concentration? So to satisfy myself I downloaded the best data I could find – I am not an expert in the subject but it would appear that the NOAA and Mouna Lua data sets are highly reliable. I then began a long but ultimately rewarding study: recognizing the stochastic nature of the time series (I(1) and I(2) respectively) I faced I attempted both first and second order regressions looking for what I presumed would be a high degree of sensitivity of temperature to changes in CO2 concentration. The answer is there is none.

I have followed it up up by lagged studies – there is no relationship. So I scoured the climate science literature to find an experimental design or some satisfactory explanation for this lack of association. There is plenty of reference to the high correlation between temperature and CO2 but that is not good enough. There is a high correlation between temperature and the salaries of first division footballers. It means nothing – it would only mean something if variation in temperature could be shown to be positively correlated with changes in footballers salaries. They cannot. The climate science literature is silent on this problem. Now I know why – if they new what the correlation was the atmospheric sensitivity problem would be solved.

Now I have no interest in publishing this. Why should I bother? Why should you bother? Given what I now believe to be the truth the empirical evidence will unravel those who believe that CO2 is the primary driver of atmospheric temperature. I am content to wait and let time deal with the individuals whose rather unpleasant comments on this blog say more about their own characters than their thinking ability. So my advice: let time cut them down to size. After all – revenge is a dish best served cold.

ps: there is one academic paper published in the International Journal of Geosciences, 2010, 1, 102-112 by Paulo Cesar Soares (2010) Warming Power of CO2 and H2O: Correlations with Temperature Changes which comes to exactly the same conclusion as I have outlined above.

To express ad hominem arguments, like those of RWFOH, Luke and others, is a clear signal that they don’t have scientific resources to demonstrate that my calculations and article is wrong.

This way, they are recognizing that scientists are right and AGW proponents are wrong.

Let me tell you that this issues on the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide have been verified by experimentation and observation by many scientists who have published their works, like Hottel, Leckner, Lapp, Sarofim, Brosmer, Tien, Edwards, etc., etc.

Therefore, I cannot publish the work of others who have pertinently published their findings and experiments and observations from the real world, but only to teach you the true science of thermal energy transfer.

Read Hottel, Leckner, Modest, Edwards, Sarofim, Lapp, Pitts, Sissom, etc., and see that I am right and AGW proponents are using pseudoscience.

Instead of looking for my multiple conferences that I have given to universities scientists and students, you should be demonstrating that the formulas and results in my article are wrong.

Your ad hominem, which has not –and cannot– have the minimal effect on my clean career because my work is well known worldwide and I am in a good stand science academies and universities.

By expressing your ad hominem, you are demonstrating that you know nothing about the science of thermal energy transfer and basic physics and that you are accepting that my calculations and the work of hundreds of scientists are correct; therefore, you have been defeated by a humble university professor of sciences.

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
By Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner

“The atmospheric greenhouse mechanism is a conjecture that can be proved or disproved by
concrete engineering thermodynamics. Exactly this was done many years ago by an expert in this
field, namely Alfred Schack, who wrote a classical textbook on the subject. In 1972 he showed that
the radiative component of heat transfer by CO2, though relevant in combustion chamber
temperatures, can be neglected at atmospheric temperatures.”

My heat transfer book has emissivity of CO2 low also but the charts only go down to about 100 C. If anyone has the book mentioned above maybe a quote from it could add to the discussion. I cannot find it.

What other scientists say about the absorption saturation point is true. Any thermodynamic system has a maximum of energy that can absorb and it cannot absorb more energy beyond that limit.

This maximum is determined by the available microstates that the energy can adopt in any given system, the carbon dioxide in this case.

Beyond that limit, the absorption stops and the gas cannot absorb more energy. Otherwise, the mass particle would split into fundamental particles or it would be ionized, in which case the energy released by the particle would be dispersed towards other systems or towards sinks of thermal energy. A change of phase also could occur when a thermodynamic system gets a saturated condition.

It is not saturation in the sense of volume concentration, but with the upper limit of energy that the molecule can admit at a given volume concentration.

For example, MODTRAN gives a saturation point for atmospheric carbon dioxide of 34 ppmV. If we trust in MODTRAN, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has reached its saturation point and it is not absorbing any energy emitted by the surface.

The carbon dioxide is near its absorption, so the absorption of thermal energy by the atmospheric carbon dioxide molecules will reach the saturation point, which will make the thermal energy absorption stops.

On the carbon dioxide case, when its molecules goes beyond the saturation point it becomes a supercritical fluid, which is determined by its partial pressure in a given environment. This way, the carbon dioxide becomes a powerful coolant, not a warmer. Actually, the carbon dioxide is a coolant, not a warmer.

One gets surprised that the carbon dioxide in Venus is a supercritical fluid and is working there as a super-coolant of the surface, not as a warmer.

Thanks for your timely contribution and particularly your comment about publishing in mainstream science literature and its limitations.

I was reminded of Thomas Kuhn and the comment in his book about most scientists only being interested and allowed to do “mopping up” type research work. Anything that does not fit or progress the paradigm is mostly ignored.

Generally, and beyond science, it is interesting that often the most obvious of rebuttals can not get traction… I am often reminded of the fable… the emperor has no clothes.

El Gordo,

I think you will find that Anthony Watts, Roy Spencer and other ‘mainstream sceptics’ are unwilling to publish Nasif. I think you will find that he is considered too radical by them.

PS El Gordo
When I first started publishing Nasif, I received various emails from various sceptics saying that promoting his work at my blog was doing a disservice to the sceptics cause. In particular that high profile, respectable sceptics (apparently I am/was one of them) should not be challenging the basic accepted physics of back radiation.

Thank you so much for your insights on my work and the excellent explanation about your findings.

A bit more than one year ago, I participated in a TV debate on the climate change issue. During the hottest part of the debate, I asked a physicist colleague if he was aware on the total emissivities and total absorptivities of the carbon dioxide, to which he answered that effectively, he was aware that the carbon dioxide was not a physical driver of the climate, but that the carbon dioxide had been taken as a “viable” subject to produce greater changes on the mentality of the people to adopt environmentalist attitudes.

I continued explaining all the issue on TE and TA of the carbon dioxide. During the colleague intervention, I asked him if it was worthy to denigrate science to make the people accepted higher taxes (he was working in a governmental institution). I got no answer from him. His answer was deviated to “consensus”, “accepted science”, etc.

All twaddle guys- if he doesn’t address what’s ACTUALLY coded in GCMs – all this text book quoting is simply irrelevant. That’s what the science is based on – not somebody’s text book. SoD has told us many comments above.

Byran your comment is utterly stupid – the Fortran is explicit.

Get this big new concept published and when it doesn’t publish the reviewers comments and why they’re wrong. Won’t happen and we know why – it’s bunk.
Spencer and Lindzen get published – all this business about too hard and conspiracy is a PATHETIC excuse. There’s always E&E is you want no review.

Or perhaps get someone like Grant Petty to do a critique. Serious scientists will seek comment from other experts in the field.

I simply pointed out that if someone can’t/won’t subject their work to peer review it doesn’t lend credibility to their claim. It’s OK for deniers to be sceptical but not me?

I looked at many exchanges that Nasif was involved in online and it seems to me that many capable people have dismissed Nasif’s assertion but he cannot cope with, or accept, the rejection. A denier in denial? Who’d have thought!

It also seems to me that the sceptics and deniers first ‘port of call’ in any dispute over science is paranoia and conspiracy theories about the “science establishment”. I’m also sceptical by nature but the idea that there is a conspiracy among climate scientists to protect fiefdoms and funding is just bizarre.

Scepticism is fine but AGW denial/scepticism is a bottomless well of inspiration for anyone with a mental disorder or character defect.

If deniers and sceptics are worried about ad hominem , take a good long look at yourselves. Talk about hypocrites!

“I think you will find that Anthony Watts, Roy Spencer and other ‘mainstream sceptics’ are unwilling to publish Nasif. I think you will find that he is considered too radical by them.”

Yes, you are right:

I was banned by Anthony Watts to post on his blog adducing that my science was “ridiculous” when I demonstrated that the concept of heat handled by Dr. Leif Svalgaard was not correct, after Dr. Leif Svalgaard said that my post was nonsense, despite it was a paragraph taken from the book of Thermodynamics by Engels et al. I still keep Watts’ e-mail in my mailbox files.

I have tried to post on Dr. Roy Spencer’s blog and my posts are never published. Also, I sent one of my articles to him and I didn’t receive a response from him, neither my article was published on his blog.

I was bitterly expulsed from a skeptics blog when I show them some articles on plants physiology which talked about the differences of the metabolism in C3 and C4 plants regarding the CO2.

The only lesson from the expierences described above and other from other supposedly scientific blogs is that honest science is not well received everywhere. There are places where a description of a well controlled experiment has not room.

I’m highly grateful –and always will be– to Dr. Jennifer for accepting my humble scientific papers to be published on his accredited blog.

Nasif, the “purple pig” was in reference to the idea that climate science establishment would be wrong and an outsider would be right. That’s about outside odds, not ad hominem.

I had a laugh at Spamgled Drongo’s expense. Drongo claimed that when wind reached a certain speed over water it caused wave height to lower. As a scientist, I thought you might be able to help him out. We call it “coming in off a long run up”. Where’s the ad hom on you?

I’m not a scientist Nasif but I do understand how peer review works and its value. If you believe the climate scientists have miscalculated the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere you need to coalesce the relevant citations into a single coherent paper and submit it for peer review.

You can say you’re right as much as you like but, to a layperson, your assertion will remain as an assertion until it is validated and confirmed by peer review.

Until you submit to the rigours of scientific peer review protocol, I am right and you are wrong. That’s how it works.

Jennifer; I reckon its right that you have Nasif despite his hangups but beware his stuff floats only on blogsphere. As tired as I was yesterday I wrote a long comment on the thread then blew it away when I failed to fill the boxes above. Guess it was “wrong button” after my page timed out.

It went along my idea that Nasif needs to get into combustion engineering mags with articles on R&D, measurement and control etc where radiant energy transfer via gas mixtures, theory and practice is common knowledge. The CO2 component is a variable in furnace design.

“Jennifer; I reckon its right that you have Nasif despite his hangups but beware his stuff floats only on blogsphere. As tired as I was yesterday I wrote a long comment on the thread then blew it away when I failed to fill the boxes above. Guess it was “wrong button” after my page timed out.

It went along my idea that Nasif needs to get into combustion engineering mags with articles on R&D, measurement and control etc where radiant energy transfer via gas mixtures, theory and practice is common knowledge. The CO2 component is a variable in furnace design.”

Of course, I know those works on mixtures of gases and have done many calculations on the effect of overlapping absorption bands, but neither tose works neither my works have changed the insignificant role of the carbon dioxide on producing any heating of the environment, i.e. its total absorptivity and total emissivity don’t change.

If you have read a bit on those works, you should know that the carbon dioxide in any mixture reduces the total emissivity of the water vapor from 0.4 down to 0.37, i.e. the carbon dioxide acts like a coolant, not like a warmer.

You should know also that the engineering calculations on the total emissivity are done taking into account carbon dioxide partial pressures thousands of times higher than the partial pressure of this gas in the atmosphere.

Conclusion: The carbon dioxide total absorptivity and total emissivity in the atmosphere, according to experimentation and observation of reality, is 0.0017.

“Regarding the Lallemant, Sayre and Weber’s paper, let’s make a deal. I will bought the article, but you have to get the compromise of giving me back the 61 bucks (31 x 2 US dollars) if I find a single error in their calculations or if I demonstrate that it has nothing to do with the real atmosphere. If I fail on demonstrating it, you won’t have to giving me back my dollars. Deal?

I’m not a scientist either.
It doesn’t mean I don’t have the ability to read scientific articles, decipher graphs and check basic assumptions in statistical computer models.
It also doesn’t mean I’m not interested in Science or that I don’t have an understanding of Science.
It just means that I’m not employed as a Scientist.
Many of us who aren’t career Scientists actually have science subjects as part of our University degrees.
An even larger proportion of us also have ‘statistics’ as part of our degrees, but we aren’t career number crunchers either.
So what?
I can’t see how not being a bonafide employed scientist or even an unpublished but definitely employed scientist somehow precludes people from commenting and studying this subject?
It is a rather a hollow argument Luke, Gav and SofD.
It actually smacks of some type of exclusive snobbery.
Just because Nasif isn’t ‘peer reviewed’ in main stream science journals does not mean that he may/or may not be be onto something here.
If he is correct, and despite the bluster on this blog no one has PROVED that he is not, then that emissivity figure has the potential to radically alter the AGW computer models.
This has more to do with my understanding of statistics and computer models rather than my understanding of Nasif’s calculations and formulas.
It has absolutely nothing to do with my choice of career.
Whether you like it or not you guys, AGW and climate change science is affecting all of us in many ways because it has become politicised.
That means that people other than career scientists have become very interested.
Just remember that it doesn’t mean these people are ignorant or naiive. They could even have higher IQs than you! How would you know? And why does it matter?

I am bitterly disappointed; SoD has packed his CO2 molecule and gone home and we are left with the mental debris of luke, gav and this new chap with all the initials.

SoD said that nowhere in the official literature was it suggested that AGW theory was based on the Earth having an emissivity of 1; I gave him Arthur Smith’s famous article on the calculation of the greenhouse temperature which was based on the assumption that Earth has an emissivity of 1.

How much proof do you need; all calculations of the difference between the temperatures we have and supposedly would have if there was no greenhouse effect are calculated on that basis.

Nasif has shown that CO2 does not have an emissivity anywhere near 1; which means its absorptivity is equally low commensurate with Kirchoff’s law.

Now luke has started screaming again about the accuracy of the measurement of CO2 backradiation; he should revisit this:

You must be referring to Nasif because I deferred to people with the relevant qualifications, i.e. peer review.

How many people commenting at this blog are actually qualified or have enough understanding of the subject to assess Nasif’s claims?

That is why his failure to subject his work to the legitimate scrutiny of peers reeks. We rely on that process to find the truth. If someone is confident in their work, why would they duck the process? And then I read that even prominent sceptic blogs won’t publish him. And you don’t hear any alarm bells going off? How convenient!

RWFOH,
Go to 3 posts back and add your name to Gav’s, Luke’s and S of D’s.

Gavin,
The whole point is that Nasif is asserting that the number is not 1.
He is saying that CO2 is 0.0017.
Is he and the others he has referenced correct?
You haven’t proved he isn’t you’re just saying that no one has published him (personally).
As I said before….SO WHAT?
Plenty of the references that he and others have offered are published.

If he and others are correct, then the models are wrong and they need to be updated.

Gee whiz you guys, if we only ever believed what landed in print and textbooks, we wouldn’t even know how to split the atom.
Why?
Because all the peer reviewed scientists at that time believed that it was impossible.
They could even prove it too!

Have you forgotten that true science is often knowing that there is much that we don’t know and finding out if we can find out?
It is not a static and absolute discipline and it never was. We would never learn anything if that was the case.

Speaking in such absolutes about AGW just indicates that your science has been prematurely hijacked by politics.
We have all seen that happen before too.

“If he and others are correct, then the models are wrong and they need to be updated.”

Exactly Debbie, and that is why we rely on a proven convention for checking his work to see if it is correct. Why is he snowing lay people and not having his assertions validated by those who are qualified?

I have peer reviewed articles by teams of physicists and mathematicians from several universities.

I decided, long time ago, to not promote myself; however, it is enough on googling my name to see that my peer reviewed articles have been quoted by other authors on diverse themes.

Many of my graphs has been included in books of Geology by the University of Baja California, astrobiology by the Universityof Aguascalientes, Climate Change by the University of Durango, etc.

All of them have copies of my peer reviews in their libraries.

There are many authors in Wikipedia that cite my peer reviewed articles. It is just that I am not an arrogant person and I consider that science and scientific knowledge do not depend on how many peer reviewed articles you have published.

Besides, an academic work does not need peer review because it has the support of other authors who have published peer reviews. This is another speck of ignorance on the AGW camp. It is as simple, Debbie says, as to show that the calculations in my essay and in the work of many other scientist (refered in my paper) are wrong.

Instead, you have spent too much time on trying to find defects on my person, which, by the way, you have not found.

If you cannot do it, then you have been defeated by this humble scientist. 😀

Good for you Nasif,
That’s what I would like to see too.
Instead of blustering about ‘peer review’ for goodness sake, prove that the information is wrong.
If indeed he is wrong, and you can prove it, then that’s excellent.
If indeed he is right, then those climate models need to be updated with new raw data.
Don’t they???????

“A black body is a theoretical object that absorbs 100% of the radiation that hits it. Therefore it reflects no radiation and appears perfectly black.“. Bolds are mine. So it is theoretical, not real, and “absorbs 100% of the radiation that hits it”.

From Pitts and Sissom on Heat Transfer book, page 2:

“The ideal emitter, or blackbody, is one which gives off radiant energy according to (1.6). All other surfaces emitt somewhat less than this amount, and the thermal emission from many surfaces (gray bodies can be well represented by q = εσAT^4…where ε, is the emissivity of the surface…” Bolds are mine. Therefore, a body that emits less than 100% (near blackbody) is not a blackbody because the condition for being a blackbody is that it emits 100%. If not, it is a gray body.

From Thermodynamics by Rolle, page 545:

“A black body is a perfect material surface (and therefore not realistic)… A gray body is defined as that which thermal energy is defined by q = εσAT^4…” Bolds are mine. Once again, black bodies don’t exist in nature. On the other hand, if the condition of emitting or absorbing 100% of radiation is not fulfilled, then such system is not a blackbody, but a gray body. Have you noticed the importance of emissivity in Stefan-Boltzmann equation?

From Manrique book on Heat Transfer, pages 11 and 253 (published by Oxford University):

“A real body does not satisfy the characteristics of a black body because it emits a lower amount of radiation.” Bolds are mine. So real bodies are not black bodies.

And I could continue with this list, but I’m sleepy.

Gavin, your concept of black body is wrong. You must amend it or your furnaces will explode.

Nasif, you can cite as many legitimate references as you like in your theory but if the result is gobbledygook that flies in the face of around 200 years of scientific findings then you run the risk of being called a crank.

I like the way you can claim that your status as academic excuses you from scrutiny. Handy!

In regard to the ‘greenhouse effect’, in the conclusion to the paper you link to, you accuse the world’s most prestigious science organisations of “a deliberate pseudoscientific misrepresentation”. (I won’t even bother with the political and ideological obsessions that drive you to maintain biocab.org)

If I wasn’t sure before, I am now. You’re a shonk and a fraud. That the gullible here should rush to embrace you reveals a lot about the moral and intellectual vacuum of the deniersphere.

Check out who you reject in your bid to find succour from reality and your own paranoia:

Indeed, the carbon dioxide effect on the surface and the atmosphere (on other molecules of gases) is of cooling and it happens even inside our bodies.

In histology lab, we use carbon dioxide to freeze tissues samples. In colliders and nuclear reactors we use carbon dioxide as an excellent coolant because it becomes a supercritical fluid at high pressure (at a pressure similar to the Venusian atmosphere pressure, for example; but it is not my work, but of other scientists).

Hah! There are many wiki articles where my articles are not cited, but there are many wiki articles where my articles are cited, for example the article on Heat Transfer, the article on Astrobiology, the article of Life, etcetera, etcetera.

There are many wiki articles that don’t mention Albert Einstein either. Is that so bad for Albert Einstein Theories? LOL!

Show me your numbers because the Wikipedia article that you linked doesn’t mention the total emissivity or the total absorptivity of the carbon dioxide.

You’re a bit lost, RWFOH… Sorry. I don’t maintain biocab.org. I helped to create it, but I don’t receive funds of organizations or the government, so I’m not able to maintain it. It is an organization.

I helped also on NASA’s Stardust Project, in 1999, but it doesn’t mean that I put a cent or my finger on it.

“Yes? And, which are those “world’s most prestigious science organizations” that, according to you, I accused? Please, give names.”

Might be easier if you named any reputable organisation that rejects the theory of “greenhouse effect” given that you wrote “Any assertion—involving the physics of radiative heat transfer—that carbon dioxide is a causative agent of climate change, is a deliberate pseudoscientific misrepresentation.”

BTW, couldn’t see any references to you at the articles on “heat transfer”, “astrobiology” or “life” at Wikipedia.

“Therefore, for an air temperature of 308 K (35 °C), the carbon dioxide contributes with 13.5 K. The remainder thermal effect of carbon dioxide is exclusively of cooling of the surface and other masses of more efficient absorbent gases.”

I actually think that is too high. I have previously tried to engage SoD and others in respect of Arthur Smith’s paper on calculating the greenhouse temperature; Earth has 2 temperature components, the effective temperature or what Smith calls Teff (t); Smith and indeed the established consensus is that this temperature component is about 255K; CO2 or the greenhouse gas effect plays no part in this.

The 2nd part of Earth’s temperature is the greenhouse temperature, which Smith calls T4ave, which is universally acknowledged to be about 33K to give an average global temperature of ~288K.

CO2 only contributes to the greenhouse component or the 33K amount. How much it contributes to that 33K has been calculated by a number of people:

RWFOH,
Your links always take me back to the about the same place. The problem is that they all assume that emissivity factor of 1. I still haven’t seen proof from you & others that shows that CO2 definitely does have an emissivity factor of 1 in our atmosphere.
It is not good enough to just ‘assume’.
Did you actually look at the links that Nasif, el Gordo and others have tried to direct you to?
I have.
There’s a whole other world out there if you would care to look.
Have you actually looked?
The references are reputable, they just don’t support CO2 as a major factor in global warming and part (not all) of the reason is that pesky emissivity factor.
How about you explain why you believe Nasif is wrong?
I would be interested in that.
Seriously, I would really like to know.
If he is right, those climate models are in serious need of updating.
If he is wrong, then that’s fine with me too.
just saying:
“but if the result is gobbledygook that flies in the face of around 200 years of scientific findings then you run the risk of being called a crank.”
will not fly because you haven’t supplied ‘the result’.
There are plenty of other ‘results’ that flew in the face of scientific findings that have later been proven to be the missing link and the platform for major new discoveries.
My chosen career (which is not science) teaches me that we must always ask questions and always check the data.
Otherwise we would still be in the dark ages.
To post something like that makes you sound like a religious zealot from earlier centuries. They were highly obstructive to new discoveries back then too. Just as well the genuine scientists and genuine researchers didn’t give up.
Considering the way you’re trying to engage I would credit you with more intelligence than that.

Cohenite; imo Nasif’s conclusion as writen is a mess. Perhaps you can sort it hey

Ive been thinking there is another wad of mags Nasif could aim at in the measurement industry like Photonics Online that turned up in a CO2 laser R&D search, another link to “emissivity” in practice.

It proved that I’m realy out of the loop these days! Let’s stay out of the way by mending gear with no active components like old rules and set squares. BTW I flattened the sole of several wood planes today using emery cloth on a slab of thick particle board while taking care of the cast iron dust build up on my makeshift optically flat pad. Now see this on a genuine “black” body

Nasif, while I am certainly not on the same side of the room as Luke, Gavin and RWFOHWTF (sorry, couldn’t resist), there is something I can’t put my finger on that leaves me uncomfortable with your conclusions. I must admit that this is by far the most ‘out of my league’ post I have read on any blog site so I can’t present any rational arguments to support my unease. Meaning no disrespect, I must also add that the revelations WRT WUWT etc. also gives me pause and I’m not willing to accept your arguments in blind faith just because you are on ‘our side’.
Unfortunately, I haven’t found any of the counter-arguments helpful either (Gavin should know that there is no such thing as a real black body, it’s just a theoretical construct), I for one don’t care if your published in a peer reviewed journal, it’s whether or not it’s true.
O.K., I’m letting this one though to the keeper, cheers.

I am an old chemical engineer who has worked in coal conversion and combustion my whole life. Nasif is correct.

The IPCC adopted the work completed by Kiehl and Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder Colorado to show how radiative forcing from greenhouse gases causes the earth to warm. Here is a statement from that paper:

The long wave radiative forcing of the climate system for both clear [125 W/m2 (watts/square meter)] and cloudy (155 W/m2) conditions are discussed. We find that for the clear sky case the contribution due to water vapor to the total long wave radiative forcing is 75 W/m2, while for carbon dioxide it is 32 W/m2.

Really, when the average water vapor concentration in the lower troposphere is around 2.5 volume % (or 25,000 ppmv) and carbon dioxide concentration is less than 400 ppmv? The CO2 concentration is only 1.6% of the water vapor concentration. In the Hottel and Egbert correlation the only difference between water vapor and carbon dioxide regarding the radiation effect is their partial pressures. Partial pressures of gases are proportional to their volumetric concentrations. Based on this and using the water vapor effect as a basis at 75 W/m2 then the CO2 effect would be 1.2 W/m2, not the 32 W/m2 stated.

The Kiehl and Trenberth work also violates both the first (can’t get more energy out than you put in) and second (heat transfer is only from a hotter to cooler body, never vice versa) laws of thermodynamics.

The best gray body construction by human beings is an alley of Chromium Oxide (Cr2O3) and Zirconium Dioxide (ZrO2) stabilized with Calcium Oxide (CaO), which absorptivity and emissivity is 0.97 and another one made of Zirconium and Titanium with an absorptivity and emissivity of 0.984

You must change your concept of black body because the idea you got from somewhere is unphysical.

Again, you fail on labeling me… I’m not Galileo, but Nasif; is that too hard to understand by you?

This paper is based on the experiments of other scientists. The algorithm was developed (derived) from experiments by Hottel, Leckner, Lapp, etc., etc., etc.

Additionally, you can see the insignificant total emissivities of the carbon dioxide on the tables that you can find in any book on heat transfer by radiation. I’m not alone on this THEORY and LAWS. Mine is a humble calculation based on experimentation and observations made by many physicists.

Truth hurts, but it’s not my problem. The total emissivity of the atmospheric carbon dioxide is 0.0017, whether you like it or not. Welcome to the real world, Luke!

That’s the way how science works. We cannot accept every argument or theory just because it fits with our beliefs.

In science we verify any experiment, observation, etc., many times. When a scientist finds an error in an experiment, theory, etc., the scientist is obligued to make the authors know about the mistake. If it is possible, the authors are obligued to amend the error after verifying that the observation by that scientist who found it is correct.

However, Luke, RWFOH, etc., have not made a revision of my ciphers and the references provided. Instead, they are very busy on ad hominem arguments, which is not science, but politics or, as we say in Spanish, “es mala leche”.

Interesting investigation from Cornell. Two years ago I made a similar experiment, but with spearmint and melons. I got spearmint plants almost 90 centimeters high!!! They were healthy and their leaves were bigger than normal. Regarding melons, unfortunately they were plagued by white flies and I had to stop the experiment with melons.

Bryan – are you KIDDING – “While I have not had the time to study in detail the paper by Nasif Nahle his conclusions about the effect of CO2 in the troposphere are certainly in line with other serious studies.”

“While I have not had the time to study in detail the paper” – the confession
“are certainly in line with other serious studies” – HAHAHAHAHAHHA

“Nasif – as I said your hypothetical considerations are paff – what’s in modern GCM codes is the relevant issue for radiative transfer. We’re not going to bother chasing your sophistic claims.

Luke, Luke… Cannot you understand that my work is not hypothetical, but the results of experimentation and observations carried out by eminent scientists like Hottel, Leckner, Lapp, Ludwig, etc. etc.?

You are not going to bother chasing my sophistic claims because mine are not sophistic claims, but REAL science and you know nothing on the issue.

Why you have gotten so mad when you are confronted with the work of honest scientists like Hottel, Leckner, Lapp, Ludwig, Modest, Manrique, Castellan, Rolle, Engel, Boyer, Pitts, Sissom, Wilson, NAHLE, etc., etc.?

You’re clearly showing your fanaticism on your AGW religion, which don’t allow you to make the difference between reality (science) and fantasy (AGW idea).

After spending a hour or so reading Nasif’s paper again, in particular the second method I concluded it was a mess too, not so much for the ciphers, but the staging based on the rhetoric. The whole thing does not flow with out some background in concepts and choices hence this search on “Radiative Heat Transfer – CO2 atmosphere” beginning with due respect for math by Nasif. Btw a good looking site but who twigged the English?http://www.biocab.org/Heat_Transfer.html –
An alternative methods after ignoring blogsphere anti AGW posts etc Note; I examined many IEEE publications while working in radio communications and spectrum management.
“Arbitrary-Order Spherical Harmonics Method for Radiative Heat Transfer in Semitransparent Medium” – see this Abstract
“A radiative transfer model for a linearly or nonlinearly anisotropic scattering medium is developed. An arbitrary-order spherical harmonics method (PN-approximation) was presented to decompose the radiative transfer equation into a set of coupled partial differential equations which solved by the tridiagonal matrix method. By using PN-approximation formulation, the greenhouse effect from carbon dioxide on atmosphere temperature profile was simulated. The results show that the spherical harmonics method is an effective method which has any desired high-order of accuracy. The increase of carbon dioxide concentration causes the enhancement of air temperature”

And now I know why he hasn’t submitted to peer review. He’s a either fraud or a shonk or both. It’s all on display at the link. It’s a disturbing portrait and shows why even deniers run a mile from this bloke.

And cohenite, like butter wouldn’t melt in your mouth, you knew he’s a shonk but you continued with the charade that he had some merit. That makes you a shonk too and reveals some unsavoury truths about your character.

So don’t worry about “religious zealots” like me, you just carry on with your crazy little cargo cult that believes a huge majority of the world’s scientists are involved in a vast conspiracy to suck you in.

I’d like to call your attention to this data from Hottel’s experiment:

Hottel found also that the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide in a saturated state was very low (Ɛcd = 0.23 at 1.524 atm-m and Tcd = 1,116 °C).

Notice that the partial pressure of the carbon dioxide was 1.524 atm, which is 4010 times higher than the atmospheric partial pressure of this gas, and that the temperature was 1116 °C, 66 times higher than the standard temperature of the atmosphere. Nevertheless, the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide was the insignificant 0.23.

Nasif; I said early on in our exchanges fancy math don’t = science. I said recently I can’t follow your flow ie logic as most radiative stuff requires the use of black body physics for starters and it’s false engineering to go down the CO2 plant path.

It’s a pity we can’t see the CO2 molecule in action but it either absorbes or emits an IR photon as a black body in math terms or it dosen’t work as a spectrum filter in practice. Yuo can’t wriggle out of that. Btw when did Hertzberg review your stuff?

Also there is another furnace product SO2. What can you say about that re plants or climate change??

Luke, Rwfoh, Gavin
I thought the basic questions being asked here were:
Do the current models assume CO2 has an emissivity of 1 in our atmosphere?
Is that assumption correct or does the research we have been directed to by Nasif and others indicate that it is incorrect?

If that assumption is correct (and if that is the figure in the radiative heat transfer models?) then you have nothing to worry about.
If that asumption is incorrect then the models need updating don’t they?
I wasn’t trying to get ahead of myself Luke, I would really like to know what the figure is and what figure is being used in the models.
I also think it has to be relevant to our atmosphere doesn’t it?
CO2 in a furnace is not the same as CO2 in our atmosphere is it?
Plant absorption of CO2 is an extremely important part of the way CO2 operates in our atmosphere.
Our atmosphere is definitely not a furnace.

Gavin (at least I think it was the same Gavin) posted this elsewhere on Jen’s site

“There is a simple way to tell the difference between propagandists and scientists. If scientists have a theory they search diligently for data that might actually contradict the theory so that they can fully test its validity or refine it. Propagandists, on the other hand, carefully select only the data that might agree with their theory and dutifully ignore any data that disagrees with it”

“Nasif; I said early on in our exchanges fancy math don’t = science. I said recently I can’t follow your flow ie logic as most radiative stuff requires the use of black body physics for starters and it’s false engineering to go down the CO2 plant path.

Maths is the language of science, therefore, science comes first and maths after science. Hottel and others carried out the experiments, observations, etc., scientific method; soon after, they and others derived the formulas -science language- that all scientists on thermal energy transfer apply.

Maths permits us to make predictions and calculations over real conditions. Thus, we corroborate those calculations with observations and experimentation. That’s what Lapp conducted to present his PhD thesis. After him, many other scientists conducted experiments and completed and corrected the charts by Hottel. This is how science works.

Calculations on black bodies, which do not exist in nature, are useful because we can have an idea about what is happening in a determined process, for example the Stefan-Boltzmann equation on black bodies. However, if we want to know what is actually occurring, we make use of gray bodies formulas; again, for example the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, but introducing the emissivity/absorptivity of the system that we are studying.

You say:

It’s a pity we can’t see the CO2 molecule in action but it either absorbes or emits an IR photon as a black body in math terms or it dosen’t work as a spectrum filter in practice. Yuo can’t wriggle out of that. Btw when did Hertzberg review your stuff?

Yes, it’s a pity that we cannot see molecules in action. Nevertheless, if the molecule of CO2 would absorb or emit as a black body, it would be more efficient than the own Sun and it would be a sorce, not a simple absorber/emitter of IR. Starting from the fact that the wavelength emitted by the surface has not the same wavelength than the quantum/wave absorbed and the quantum/wave emitted by the carbon dioxide is not the same than the wavelength of the absorbed quantum/wave:

From here, the problems start because this issue on the change of wavelengths has been extensively verified and it makes impossible that the carbon dioxide reabsorbs an emitted quantum/wave from another CO2 molecule. Consequently, CO2 does not absorb/emit as a black body just because it is not a black body.

In a furnace, like that of Hottel where he heated the carbon dioxide up to 2505 °C to confirm the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide, you can make the air as a whole heats up at a given temperature. It does not happen in nature because the energy incoming from the Sun and the solar energy absorbed by the surface are limited amounts. If another Sun sudenly appeared, or we we lost all of our carbon dioxide (a super-coolant) we would be in serious problems. 🙂

You say:

Also there is another furnace product SO2. What can you say about that re plants or climate change??

To be honest, I have not made calculations on SO2. But some experiments show it is a good absorber of thermal energy.

It is worthy to notice that Hottel found that the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide at 2502 °C (147 times higher than the standard temperature of the Earth) and a partial pressure of 5 atm (five times the effective pressure of the atmosphere at sea level) was 0.09.

We don’t need imagination to know that under the physical conditions of the Earth, with average standard temperature of 17 °C and a partial pressure of the atmospheric carbon dioxide of 0.00039 atm the carbon dioxide cannot have a total emissivity higher than 0.002.

Is carbon dioxide a good absorber/emitter of heat? No, it’s a very weak one; it is a coolant, not a warmer.

Well, now Roetc has left the building casting aspersions about my character and linking to a SoD thread where “someone named Mark really took him [Nasif] to task and the whole facade came crashing down.”

I suspect Mark is Tamino but that is of no consequence; the exchange between Nasif and someone who I do respect, DeWitt Payne, is interesting: DeWitt says this [on June 21, 2010 at 5:22 pm]

“The unit atm m in SI units has the dimension m only (a Dobson Unit is 0.00001 atm m so 300 Dobson units is 0.003 m), which is a little confusing I admit. It took me a while to figure that out. It’s the mass of gas per unit area divided by the density of the gas at 1 atm. So then the mass of gas/m2 is atm m times the density. One atm m of a gas with the density of dry air at STP (1 atm, 273.2 K) has a mass of 1.293 kg/m2. 1 atm in SI units has the dimensions kg m-1 sec-2. As you should be able to see, they’re really quite different. 3.04 atm m of CO2 then has a mass of 5.971 kg. 7988 atm m of dry air has a mass of 10,328 kg/m2 or the mass/m2 of the atmosphere (101,325 Pa/9.81 m/2(g)). So again, 3.04 atm m of CO2 is not 3,000,000 ppmv, it’s 3.04/7988 or 0.00038 ppmv.

One can also have kPa m, which would then be the mass of gas/m2 divided by the density of the gas at 1 kPa pressure. Or in English units, atm foot, which would be the mass in pounds of gas/square foot divided by the density at STP in pounds/cubic foot. Once you understand that atm m is a length, it’s all very simple. And it is a length.

For an optically thin emission source, doubling the path length doubles the emission. By saying that CO2 in the entire vertical column of the atmosphere is 0.00038 atm m, you’re really saying that the atmosphere is only 1 m thick.”

Nasif replies:

“1. You don’t know a reliable formula for obtaining the total emissivity of an absorbent gas in the atmosphere.

2. You mix things pertaining to one concept with other unrelated things, for example, DU with carbon dioxide.

3. You don’t know the real meaning of the units atm m because you say that 0.00038 atm m is equal to one meter thick. You’re absolutely wrong. 0.00034 atm m, not 0.00038 atm m, is the thickness that the atmosphere would have if it were composed exclusively by carbon dioxide at its current density, which would be 0.34 millimeters. It couldn’t be otherwise because the density of the carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere is 0.00062 Kg/m^3, and its mass fraction is barely 383 ppmV. But you say it is 3.04 atm m, which is equivalent to 3,000,000 ppmV, which is equivalent to 5.81300 kg / m^3.

4. You don’t know how to obtain partial pressures because you said that 3.04 atm is the partial pressure of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. See what you said:

DeWitt responds:

“Dobson units are relevant because they are the same as atm m (@STP) except for a scale factor of 100,000.

I don’t say 0.00038 atm m is 1 m. Quite the opposite. 0.00038 atm m = 0.00038 m (@ STP in SI units). and 1 atm m = 1 m (@STP in SI units). atm m, as I said has the dimension meters. What you continue to miss is that the vertical column of the atmosphere of the Earth at STP is 7988 atm m, not 1 atm m.”

Nasif:

“If the mass fraction of carbon dioxide is 383 ppmV per each cubic meter, at an altitude of one meter a P = 1 atm abs, and a temperature of 308 K, the density of that cubic meter of air is 0.00067 Kg/m^3.

I am introducing real magnitudes, so it is what we observe in nature.

Those 0.00067 Kg/m^3 of carbon dioxide represent 0.038% of the total mixture of gases comprising the air, which is equivalent to 0.038% of the absolute pressure at the sea level, which is the absolute pressure applied by the whole column of the mixture of air, i.e. 1 atm.

Consequently, the partial pressure of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, at the sea level, is 0.038% / 100 % * 1 atm at every meter of the air column, assuming that the mixture of gases in the atmosphere is homogeneous in temperature and density at any altitude below 23500 m.

We know this is not real because the temperature, the composition, the density and the pressure of the air decrease with altitude. You are dismissing this fact, assuming that the partial pressure of the carbon dioxide has to be multiplied by the height of the column of air. This practice gives always false data.”

The point here is a conflict about how to best calculate the partial pressure and mean free path length of CO2; can it be done by extrapolating from the first meter at sea level over the whole atmospheric column, as I think DeWitt advocates, or at every level, as I think Nasif advocates.

“Starting from the fact that the wavelength emitted by the surface has not the same wavelength than the quantum/wave absorbed and the quantum/wave emitted by the carbon dioxide is not the same than the wavelength of the absorbed quantum/wave:” is another English mess, let’s see the math hey

Debbie; CO2 that comes out of a furnace with all it’s radience characteristics there is that extra CO2 in the atmosphere that AGW science follows. CO2 is Carbon Dioxide regardles of source. I claim we know how it transports radiation from combustion and other uses such as lasers where changing concentrations with other gases have an inpact on exchanger preformance.

OK Gavin,
I get that. “The process of combustion is not cooled by the production of CO2”
Considering the whole point of creating combustion in a furnace is to create heat, the production of that much CO2 would create a huge problem if it was an efficient coolant in a furnace.
Got that bit, no worries.
BUT…is the process of combustion HEATED by CO2?
In a furnace, isn’t CO2 a by product of the combustion process? Does it actually have amazing heating properties of its own in the furnace or indeed when its released into the atmosphere?
I’m not arguing that we’re putting more of it out there. I don’t think anyone is arguing about that.
BUT, the question about the way CO2 behaves in our atmosphere as opposed to a furnace is a valid question.
The atmosphere is not an impenetrable cast- iron like object that lets no heat out or in.
A furnace does not have humans and animals and oceans and plant life living inside it that absorb and process CO2 in many different ways. All species on Earth need CO2 as part of their survival. It is not a toxic gas. Is it an efficient heating gas?
Isn’t that part of what Nasif is trying to explain?
Are we correct to asume that CO2 has an emissivity of 1 in our atmosphere?
Are the models in fact assuming that CO2 does have an emissivity of 1?

Of course not because you have an external operator, you, and a primary source of heat, gas, electricity or coal; I don’t know your furnaces. You have to admit that if you inject carbon dioxide to the furnace and do not put to work the source of thermal energy, the carbon dioxide will NEVER heat up your furnace.

Inside most furnaces, the air heats up thanks to a source of thermal energy that heats it up.

A furnace must have a good system to avoid the thermal energy scapes fastly to the environment. Reflective walls, refractive materials, etc., but most important, some way to avoid the warm air scapes to the cooler surroundings (convection).

Nasif; where did the debate with DeWitt resolve itself with him being happy with your view, I can’t seem to find it, and could you clarify which system for measuring the CO2 variables you prefer; extrapolating from the first 1 metre to the rest of column or measuring each metre seperately?

I have just reread your exchange with Mark/Tamino and he is persistent; the only escape clause I can find is when he says this:

July 18, 2010 at 10:38 am “It also gives you 238K when calculating the temperature change of the earth when you use it with your figure of 181.64W/m^2 if you assume emissivity of 1 (tarmac, for example, would be pretty close)).”

Debbie; it seems I need to labor the point about furnaces, it’s the sudden large amount of CO2 after combustion that should be the target of any one fishing for CO2 emissivity at a pressure of one atmosphere minus a teensy bit = to your suck in between words or about 2cm negative in a u tube water manometer given air is the source of O2 necessary for combustion. Note too in that process, O2 is almost completely used in an efficient fuel conversion.

Engineers need to calculate radiant heat transfers for all gases remaining in the air stream in addition to conduction and convection right down to the last flue gas heat exchanger that’s used for warming the fresh air coming in with fuel. Btw reflection is not much of an issue for heat exchangers since they are very black steel and mostly far away from red hot boiler tubes close to combustion. That pesky CO2 and unfortunately SO2 along with nitrogen are the medium for all radiant heat transfer after combustion.

I made these observations while watching real furnaces in action, wood, coal, oil & gas fired often together and sometimes after fuel conversions. However I started as instrument tec in a team including several physicists building a pilot reactor for combusting black (organic) liquor and air in combination at extremely high pressures in order to salvage our caustic from a large wood chip pulping process.
I reckon it’s worth pondering what happens to CO2 and it’s heat transfer characteristics in all conditions (2000 psi as described above) and say it’s not enough to hunt down the AGW science by it’s self from some arbitrary position outside our growing climate circles. Getting a proper handle in the right field is vital if our practice is to improve

Thanks Gavin,
That helps a lot.
There’s no question that we release a lot of extra CO2 due to our production of power and also other processes that burn solid fuels like steel production.
Most of that production of CO2 is because we furnace the solid fuels (particularly coal).
I also agree that it’s important to understand what happens to CO2 after it is released into our atmosphere and we defnitely need to understand what its heat transfer characteristics are once it is released.
I am still not convinced that its emissivity characteristics are the same as they would be inside a furnace.
Once it is released into the atmosphere a whole new set of variables are influencing CO2 characteristics.
One of them is that carbon as a singular molecule is heavier than air.
Another is that our life cycle on planet Earth uses carbon and CO2 in many different ways.
Another is that our atmosphere transfers energy in many different ways and it is not the same as a furnace.
I would be happier if I was convinced that CO2, once released into the atmosphere, definitely had that emissivity factor of 1.
I am still convinced that if it doesn’t have that emissivity figure of 1, then the AGW climate models need updating.
I don’t think the way the calculations have been formulated are wrong.
I am questioning the inputs.
I know without doubt if the inputs are incorrect, then the results will be too.
It doesn’t matter how complex the models are, they are not able to question the inputs.
That is definitely up to the people who key in the inputs.
Also…I’m assuming it’s a typo error (there is those pesky inputs again!) but I didn’t understand the latter part of your first paragraph:
“minus a teensy bit = to your suck in between words or about 2cm negative in a u tube water manometer given air is the source of O2 necessary for combustion. ”
???
Do you mind explaining what you meant to say?

I do not know too much on furnaces; however, there is a statement from you that is not congruent with your large post:

I reckon it’s worth pondering what happens to CO2 and it’s heat transfer characteristics in all conditions (2000 psi as described above) and say it’s not enough to hunt down the AGW science by it’s self from some arbitrary position outside our growing climate circles. Getting a proper handle in the right field is vital if our practice is to improve

There is not hunting of climate science, but only demosntrating that AGW is pseudoscience and antiscience.

On the other hand, we have the charts on the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide which are based on experiments and observations. For example, you should know that Hottel, Leckner and Lapp carried out their experiments on a very wide range of temperatures that, perhaps, coincide with the temperatures inside your furnaces. They tested the carbon dioxide from 5 °C to 2600 °C.

Those charts can be read from any book dealing with heat transfer. It’s quite strange that you, who works at furnaces, have never seen them.

Perhaps science of doom erased the “inconvenient” posts. When I asked Dan to answer by me, it was because I had been banned to post on science of doom blog. So, it would not be exceptional that science of doom had erased those posts.

I have not visited his/her blog to post there, but only to see or read his self-promoting articles.

At higher altitude, the partial pressure and temperature of the carbon dioxide decrease, you know. In consequence, the total emissivity of this gas decreases sensibly with altitude. Above the first kilometer, the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide is quite insignificant (paL = 0.00034 atm), therefore, if you calculate the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide introducing its partial pressure at 1 meter of altitude (0.00039 atm), then at 1000 meters (0.00034 atm), 2000 meters (0.0003 atm), 3000 m (0.00026 atm), etcetera, the results will be the same than at one meter of altitude because we cannot add a total emissivity at 1 m plus the total emissivity at 1000 meters, at 2000 meters…. etcetera. It would not be an addition but an average.

Regarding your second question, of course not, I was looking for the real emissivity of the carbon dioxide, not the temperature by the energy absorbed by a black body.

If the incident solar radiation on the surface of the Earth is 249 W/^2, and I said that the Earth’s surface absorbed only 181.64W/m^2, I was obviously considering an absorptivity of the Earth of 0.73, not of 1.0.

That was a distracting tactic from Tamino/Mark because 249 W/^2 is the number given by K-T in their annual energy budget calculations.

This may be tangentially relevant, but I make no claims regarding its accuracy. I found it on a recent Judith Curry blog comment and I expected some kind of response from other posters, but so far zilch. Perhaps I miss the point or I’ve not kept across the various debates well enough, but this does sound interesting. Any views?

This is very good stuff from Nasil, very thought provoking. The responses from the AGW side are as always hackneyed, predictable and in the main unconvincing in the extreme. Do they not understand why people don’t buy CAGW? Peer review is not the solution for making the debate on climate science more open and useful, it is the problem which stops it happening.

I’m quite disappointed with the Blogs that refuse to publish Nasils theories.

Debbie; a brief note re ‘Do you mind explaining what you meant to say’

The water manometer was a portable instrument I carried in boiler house commissioning usually after a shutdown for annual maintenance. It was never more than a coil of clear poly tubing, a 1/2 Lt drink bottle for tap water and a common rule or measuring tape

Even the most basic steam generator required 3 instruments, No1 a drum water level indicator, 2 a steam pressure gauge, 3 a combustion chamber draft indicator to ensure that no gaseous fuel mixtures exceeded atmospheric pressure at any time. Since this is mostly about balancing the suck of the stack and blow of fans feeding the furnace under varying operating conditions i.e. hot and cold furnace I used to suck and blow their instrument and mine with a great deal of caution because thick furnace dust got into our tapings often.

A fine tuned system could run safely with a minus 1/2″ water gauge differential with ambient P

Gavin, it seems you are back in the rail steam engine era or the old B&W spreader stokers.
Boilers are a bit more sophisticated these days. Further, fluid bed boilers are pressurised but maybe you have never heard of them.

I have read the first part of your message, and I was able to immediately conclude that you have never taken a course in atmospheric radiative transfer or, at the very least, you didn’t grasp what you were taught.

I say this on the basis of having written a textbook on atmospheric radiative transfer and having taught atmospheric physics at the university level for 20 years.

It is of course your prerogative to dismiss my expertise on the subject you are writing about. In fact, I fully expect you to do so, because I have encountered many like you, and you will be quite convinced that your faulty understanding of radiative transfer is superior to that of someone who studies and teaches it for a living. And so will your supporters in this website. That gloomy prediction does not restrain me from pointing it out for the sake of other readers who might happen across my reply before you get around to deleting it.

If you want to debate the role of CO2 in global warming, at least do yourself and your readers the favor of doing your homework first. Start by understanding that no gas has an intrinsic emissivity, and so your comparison of emissivity in a laboratory with that in the free atmosphere is meaningless, because it doesn’t take into account the different in the size of the sample.

and I was able to immediately conclude that you have never taken a course in atmospheric radiative transfer or, at the very least, you didn’t grasp what you were taught.

You are wrong in every one of your assertions on the above paragraph.

I say this on the basis of having written a textbook on atmospheric radiative transfer and having taught atmospheric physics at the university level for 20 years.

If you wrote a wrong book on atmospheric radiative transfer, it’s not my problem, but yours.

It is of course your prerogative to dismiss my expertise on the subject you are writing about. In fact, I fully expect you to do so, because I have encountered many like you, and you will be quite convinced that your faulty understanding of radiative transfer is superior to that of someone who studies and teaches it for a living. And so will your supporters in this website. That gloomy prediction does not restrain me from pointing it out for the sake of other readers who might happen across my reply before you get around to deleting it.

I’m not dismissing your “expertise” on the subject and I don’t care about your “expertise. If you are wrong from a scientific standpoint, it is your problem, not mine.

I only ask you to show me what the experiment on total emissivity of carbon dioxide you have conducted through your “20 years of expertise” and the numbers on the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, at current conditions, are. I don’t care your expertise, even if you were Albert Einstein or Newton.

If you want to debate the role of CO2 in global warming, at least do yourself and your readers the favor of doing your homework first. Start by understanding that no gas has an intrinsic emissivity, and so your comparison of emissivity in a laboratory with that in the free atmosphere is meaningless, because it doesn’t take into account the different in the size of the sample.

Show me your numbers for the total emissivity/absorptivity of the atmospheric carbon dioxide is. And please, don’t try to say that total emissivity/absorptivity of the atmospheric gases is out of this world or that it is meaningless to know the radiative thermal energy is in the atmosphere because you would be wasting your “20 years of expertise” on the matter. My work is based on observations and experimentation and I have proven it from different scientific viewpoints: the one provided by physical chemistry, the one provided by quantum physics, the one provided by astrophysics, and the one provided by quantum thermodynamics. If you consider that the climate viewpoint contradicts the scientific knowledge because the laws of physics don’t apply to climate, then you’re handling pseudoscience.

a) Something that should jump right out at anyone is the mismatch in the units. You claim to be calculating a distance yet the equation as written has units of g^2/cm. As written this equation makes no sense.

b) m, from the value used above is the mass of just one cubic cm of the gas. n, is simply wrong by many many many orders of magnitude. And σ should have units of cm^2.

c) What are you calculating the Mean Free Path of? CO2, at atmospheric temperature and pressure, is not an ionized gas with free electrons and as such will not cause Thomson Scattering. The question should be what is the Mean Free Path before absorption not before scattering.

d) Where did you get that equation from? I do not have access to your reference (1) but reference (2) does not contain it. It does have something similar(equ. 3.41) but that is not what you have used above.

b) m, from the value used above is the mass of just one cubic cm of the gas. n, is simply wrong by many many many orders of magnitude. And σ should have units of cm^2.

Sorry, but who is wrong is you. I hope you know how to calculate molecular mass. If you know how to do it, you’ll find that “m” is correct.

c) What are you calculating the Mean Free Path of? CO2, at atmospheric temperature and pressure, is not an ionized gas with free electrons and as such will not cause Thomson Scattering. The question should be what is the Mean Free Path before absorption not before scattering.

I am not making a calculation for an ionized gas. Do you know with which particles of a molecule the quantum/wave interacts?

You say:

d) Where did you get that equation from? I do not have access to your reference (1) but reference (2) does not contain it. It does have something similar(equ. 3.41) but that is not what you have used above.

Nahle wasn’t interested in actual atmospheric measurements because they didn’t fit his theory. Why waste time with real measurements?

A bit like not being interested in evidence that his absurd claim (“atmospheric physics assumes that the atmosphere radiates as a blackbody”) is false. Why bother reading what the textbooks say when you can pretend the complete opposite?

You can see how censored the persecuted Nasif Nahle was on my blog by checking the hundreds of comments he made on that article. Actually it was his counter-commenter who was the reason I suspended all comments on that article for one day. One day. Persecution.

This is why any formula which calculates absorptivity or emissivity has to take account of the total number of absorbers.

And, therefore, if the number of absorbers is expressed via density or number of molecules/unit volume you have to take account of the total path length. If you assume a 1m path length has the same number of molecules as a 1000m path length you will be making a big mistake.

It’s so fundamental that when someone claims it isn’t important you just have to laugh. No point arguing with them. Or when they can’t see that bar.cm on a graph means you have to include path length.

a) Even though you have changed your equation it still doesnt have the right units. As written it has the units of cm^-1 not cm.
Also the Thomson cross section has units of cm^2 not cm, its an area not a length.

b) Estimating the mass of a molecule of CO2 is simple, Avagadro’s Number or the concept of a mole does not even have to be used. One molecule of CO2 has 44 nucleons, given the mass of a nucleon is 1.67*10^-24g the mass of a CO2 molecule will be approximately 7.35*10^-23g. Given the above value the number of molecules per gram would be aproxximately 1.36*10^22. This is different from your number by 100million!

c) So what are you calculating then? Electrons that interact with an incoming photon are bound inside the molecule. Using the cross section for a free unbound electron to represent the cross section of a CO2 molecule is wrong.

d) A pity? Pity that I do not have access to a text you reference? Or pity that the equation you used is not referenced in the one I do?
Where did you get that formula from? If its in the first reference could you please quote from it, or if you believe it is in the second tell me where. The equation as written makes no logical sense to me, what I am trying to do is understand what you believe it represents.

n is what? the mass of a single CO2 molecule? the mass of 1 cm^3 volume of CO2? the mass of all CO2 in the atmosphere?m is what? does it have units of g^-1 or g? flipping that unit changes the meaning of the quantity.σ is what? the cross section of a free electron or the cross section of a molecule?
If l is a length shouldnt the RHS of the equation also be a length?

I am trying to understand what you have done, actual answers would help that.

σ is the cross section of a molecule of CO2 is 7.143^-25 cm and to obtain cm instead cm^2 you divide the square root of the cross section of the molecule by a correction factor given by the c, le and v. The method is explained in both references.

I am just going to focus on one point putting aside all the other issues until this one can be resolved, your comment:
“m is the mass of a molecule of CO = 26.894 x 10^-7 g”
(assuming that it should read “CO2 = 6.894” and above is a simple typo)

Are you actually trying to say that 1 molecule of CO2 has a mass that is 100,000,000,000,000,000(10^17) times of a proton?

Are you actually saying that there is only 1 molecule of CO2 in a cm^3 volume?

Those are both direct results of you asserting that a single molecule of CO2 has a mass of 6.894*10^-7g. Both are also absolutely absurd.

BTW. Using Avagadro’s Constant and the molar mass(both of which you supplied) its simple to calculate the mass of CO2 molecule.
molar mass / Avagadro’s Constant = mass of 1 unit
44.01g/mol / 6.02*10^23mol^-1= 7.31*10^-23g
(which is pretty damn close to my approximation earlier of 7.35*10^-23g)

Your entire post is a misdirection, well most of it is. My last post dealt solely with what the mass of 1 molecule of CO2 is. That was m from your equation. Any discussion of n doesnt have a bearing on the mass of 1 molecule of CO2 and is a distraction.

All that is needed to calculate m is the molar mass(44.01g/mol) and Avagadro’s Constant(6.02*10^23mol^-1) both of which you provided.

I never implied the molar mass of CO2 is equal to the mass of one proton, infact I used the molar mass that you provided. The point of comparing the mass of CO2 to that of a proton(or neutron) is that it shows your value for CO2 is not even in the balll park of possible values. A molecule of CO2 contains 22protons and 22neutrons yet you maintain the mass of 1 molecule of CO2 is 10^17 times the mass of the individual compents. Hint: it should be about 44 times the mass of the individual components. Yours is an unreasonable claim.

Additionally the point of comparing the mass of 1 CO2 molecule to the density you provided was to show that given your mass and density you are claiming that a cube 1cm on a side contains just 1 lonely molecule. Your mass is simply the density multipled by volume of 1cm^3. Again this is an absurd proposition.

The only two things anyone needs to find the mass of any molecule/atom are the molar mass and Avagadro’s constant, since we both agree on the value of those two things(heck im even using the values you provided) how we also dont agree on the mass of CO2 is baffling.

Do you agree that the unit mass of a molecule is given by:
molar mass / Avagrado’s constant = unit mass

(Hint: try it for something other than CO2, say a Hydrogen atom.
1.01g/mol / 6.02*10^23mol^-1 = 1.67*10-24g
Not suprisingly thats the mass of 1 proton and exactly what we would expect the mass of a hydrogen atom to be just as its not suprising that CO2 is approximately 44 times the mass of a proton)

The most important point to understand is that differential absorption (dI/ds) is proportional to the number of absorbers in the path, ds.

This is stated as the Beer-Lambert law.

This is why any formula which calculates absorptivity or emissivity has to take account of the total number of absorbers.

And, therefore, if the number of absorbers is expressed via density or number of molecules/unit volume you have to take account of the total path length. If you assume a 1m path length has the same number of molecules as a 1000m path length you will be making a big mistake.

It’s so fundamental that when someone claims it isn’t important you just have to laugh. No point arguing with them. Or when they can’t see that bar.cm on a graph means you have to include path length.”

The point I was trying to understand was, when calculating the absorptivity of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, is it reasonable to extrapolate from the first 1 meter to the whole path length over the atmospheric column, or should every meter be seperately calculated.

As you know, Geiger shows that maximum backradiation in the CO2 wavelength comes from under 100 meters above the surface;

This would tend to lend weight to the need to calculate CO2 absorption and emission at every level because clearly CO2 emissivity is less as you go higher; I can’t remember whether Nasif advocates that or not but Miskolczi has done that:

I am also interested in your reference to Beer-Lambert [BL] because Miskolczi’s calculations of the optical density [OD] are intrinsically connected to BL; if BL is the integrated form of dI/dx = -Iadx, I = Ioe-ax, where a is the linear absorption coefficient, then OD is the product of the density and the distance, d = ρx, expressed in g/cm2;where, if a’ = a/ρ, I = Ioe-a’d. The advantage is that a’ is not a function of the density and distribution of the absorber, only on the number of absorber molecules present. In other words what Miskolczi calculated in his line by line analysis of the atmospheric spectra is more accurate than attempting to average over the whole column.

Miskolczi has of course found that OD has not moved, so even though CO2 concnetration has increased there must be a counterbalancing effect, probably from water vapour reduction, again probably at the crucial higher levels.

I would really like you, Nasif and Grant Petty to comment on that and the new guy, Neutrino, if he can stop showing off the advantages a good education long enough.

Both of the above are really just expressing a mass in a different way.
The first is straight forward, 1 molecule = 6.894*10^-7g.
The second is restating the mass but in another way, 2.2*10^14 molecules = 1g.

And here is the problem(well not the problem but one of many):
Those two numbers do not agree with each other!

“The point I was trying to understand was, when calculating the absorptivity of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, is it reasonable to extrapolate from the first 1 meter to the whole path length over the atmospheric column, or should every meter be seperately calculated.”

If you want to calculate the absorptivity of CO2 in a path through the whole atmosphere you need to know the total amount of CO2 through that path.

This is easily done with a well-mixed gas like CO2 because the pressure and therefore density of the atmosphere vs height is easily calculated. (Or you can look it up, for example, for the “US standard atmosphere”).

“As you know, Geiger shows that maximum backradiation in the CO2 wavelength comes from under 100 meters above the surface..

..This would tend to lend weight to the need to calculate CO2 absorption and emission at every level because clearly CO2 emissivity is less as you go higher; I can’t remember whether Nasif advocates that or not but Miskolczi has done that.”

Of course I agree. In fact, calculating the total absorptivity through the whole atmosphere is interesting but not quite the best approach. See note at end.

“.. In other words what Miskolczi calculated in his line by line analysis of the atmospheric spectra is more accurate than attempting to average over the whole column..”

The calculations you reproduce of optical thickness and of the integrated form of the Beer-Lambert law are correct. And as you correctly state, you just need to know the total number of absorbers in the path (plus the capture cross-section) – which can be derived in a variety of ways to reach the same result.

I’m sure that Miskolczi has done this because it is atmospheric physics 101.

Note on calculating Absorptivity:

To calculate radiative transfer through the atmosphere requires the absorption and emission at each height in the atmosphere (in practice this is done numerically using a number of layers in the atmosphere).

That is, if you calculate absorptivity for the whole atmosphere, then separately calculate emission for the whole atmosphere you won’t get the correct result for the emission of radiation from the top of atmosphere.

Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, who won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1983, wrote what seems to be the original work on the subject in 1950 – “Radiative Transfer”. You can find it at Google Books.

This is the standard approach for solving this problem, you can find it, for example, in Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis by R.M.Goody (1964) and in most textbooks on atmospheric physics. (You won’t find a different approach).

To calculate radiative transfer through the atmosphere requires the absorption and emission at each height in the atmosphere (in practice this is done numerically using a number of layers in the atmosphere).

I did it and the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide decreases very little every meter up to 7000 meters of altitude.

Sorry, but if you don’t make your calculations, you will never be the light at the end of the tunnel.

He or she cannot understand that the formula does not require the mass of one molecule, but the value of n for molecular carbon dioxide, which under vibrational dephasing, rotational relaxation, etc. is known as n = ρCO2molecule * Number of molecules per gram * 1.96 * (FCO2).

Excelent question. I reproduce it here. Cohenite asks you:

Neutrino, since you are obviously a guy who means business, what do you calculate as the emissivity of CO2?

I have no idea what the total emissivity of CO2 is in the atmosphere. I have no qualms admitting that. Based on what Nasif has been writing he also has no idea what the total emissivity is.

But as such it is a poorly formed question, terrestrial or longwave radiation ranges from 4μm to 40μm(roughly) so the only range of interest is that. It does not matter what the emissivity of CO2 is in any wavelength outside that range because the emission will be zero regardless of the emissivity.

To actually find the emissivity within that range I agree with SoD’s earlier comment that an integration across all the pertinent wavelengths would have to be done.(ie: emissivity is wavelength dependant) I do not have the ability to do that so I would have to defer to someone else in this.

What I can do though is read articles and papers put forward by people attempting to do that and make observations and critiques of them. Nasif’s articles(“Total Emissivity of the Earth…” and “Mean Free Path of Photons…” which his ultimate calculation of emissivity relies upon) are simply wrong. He does not consider wavelength and treats the cross section of a molecule as equal to that of a free electron to undergo scattering(the question is about absorption and emission not scattering). These two points would seem to invalidate any conclusion he would have about emissivity. Further confusion comes from his continually vague and shifting definitions of the terms of base equations. This renders any final conclusion of his equally vague and non descriptive.

All I have tried to do here is show the underpinnings of Nasif’s claims are baseless. I don’t think it is very practical to talk about high level concepts when the underlying foundation is so corrupt.

I ask Nasif one more time, and you could answer as well, what is the mass of one molecule of CO2? Since it is part of his equation to calculate mean free path which leads to transit time which leads to total emissivity it matters that he uses the correct value.

I’m writing an article on how to calculate the total emissivity as from the mean free path length.

My formulas, variables, etc., are found on books and articles of astrophysics and chemistry. I provided the references, go over them and see that my calculations are completely adhered to the scientific methodology.

If you think I am wrong, demonstrate it with your numbers. If you confess that you don’t know what the total emissivity is, ALL HAS BEEN SAID BY YOUR OWN MOUTH.

First of all, by your own words, you don’t know that the total emissivity is, therefore your following statement is wrong:

I ask Nasif one more time, and you could answer as well, what is the mass of one molecule of CO2? Since it is part of his equation to calculate mean free path which leads to transit time which leads to total emissivity it matters that he uses the correct value.

No, I don’t need the mass of one molecule of CO2, but its mass in the atmosphere. Your deductions are absolutely wrong. You, the same as SoD and others only talk, but do not demonstrate that the books on astrophysics and radiative heat transfer are wrong.

I will try this one more time.
I am critiquing how you calculate emissivity via the transit time of a photon. The transit time is conditional on the mean free path, therefore if the mean free path calculation is wrong then so is the transit time and therefore the resultant emissivity as well.

The fact that I do not know the total emissivity has no bearing on whether or not my critique of your calculation for the mean free path is valid. And no I do not think texts on astrophysics and radiative heat transfer are wrong. In fact the one that you referenced, Dan Maoz: Astrophysics in a Nutshell, I believe is clear and concise on the topic. The problem is you are taking the equations out of context and twisting them.

The text is calculating the mean free path before a photon interacts with an electron inside of a star. As an approximation of the particle density of free electrons the text uses a proxy of the number of hydrogen atoms.

As written your 3) does not equal the text 2) which you cited (for starters n ≠ ρ(co2)). Also as I said before the units of your 3) do not produce a length. Several times you have changed your definition of terms so it’s a little hard to actually pin you down(ie: is m the mass of one molecule or the mass of one cm^3 volume?).

To prevent confusion and foster actual dialogue could you write out your equation and what the terms are as I did above.

Hi Neutrino; “To actually find the emissivity within that range I agree with SoD’s earlier comment that an integration across all the pertinent wavelengths would have to be done.(ie: emissivity is wavelength dependant) I do not have the ability to do that so I would have to defer to someone else in this.”

Perhaps my comment was not quite precise. I do not have the capability to do the full blown analysis so I must defer to someone else to do that task. Not necessarily defer to their result.

As for Miskolczi’s paper, I would have to read the full piece before I could comment on it. But with a cursory look at the abstract and your link it does not appear to provide a number for the total emissivity of the CO2 component of the atmosphere.

Regardless of whether or not Miskolczi’s paper is solid does not change the point I have been trying to make in this thread:

Neutrino, I must say it is surprising that someone with your background in atmospheric physics has not read Miskolczi. The thing about Miskolczi is that you must defer to his “result” because, as Nindetharma notes, he has shown from OBSERVATION that the mean infra red opacity of the atmosphere has not changed significantly over the last 60 years or so. Given, that the infra-red opacity of the atmosphere must have increased because of additional CO2, the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from his OBSERVATIONS is that some other green-house must be compensating for the increased opacity due to CO2. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that the “other green-house gas” is water vapor.

In fact, if you actually do a spectral analysis of the infra-red opacity of the atmosphere
over the last 60 years, you find that the spectral signature is exactly the same as the spectral signature of water vapor changes in the atmosphere that are induced by the El Nino/La Nina/ENSO climate phenomena.

The increase in infra-red opacity of the atmosphere due to CO2 is roughly being negated by a decrease in infra-red opacity due to the decrease in the specific humidity (water vapor mass per Kg of air) of the upper troposphere in the tropics.

In this respect I suppose this makes the emissivity of CO2 moot but certainly not the Earth’s emissivity which, on the basis of Miskolczi’s observations, have not changed.

In respect of Nasif, he is correct about the relative importance of the radiative properties of water vapor and CO2, with CO2 much less important, and therefore having lessor emissivity, than water. This is confirmed by the fact that the decline in the specific humidity (water vapor mass per Kg of air) of the upper troposphere in the tropics is much less than the increase in CO2 concentrations.

I guess the issue of CO2 emissivity is a peripheral issue to Miskolczi’s OBSERVATIONS [Nasif may disagree] but still a crucial one and I look forward to the details of that emissivity being resolved.

Well, go ahead gav, refute Miskolczi’s OBSERVATIONS about warming NOT being due to an increase in the GHG effect; perhaps a pithy homily, preferably involving pretty foreign backpackers, will do the trick.

Nasif; it is good that you [singular] are still in good spirits; I don’t know where gav gets these ideas from; it is true that the mass of the CO2 molecule is common knowledge but I’ll let you argue the toss with Neutrino and I’ll try and follow as best I can.

I presume your next article is about saturation, line and pressure broadening etc; I know that is not directly connected with Miskolczi but what is your opinion of his observations and results?

Yes, I have not shown a single number that would put total emissivity below or above your value of 0.002.
But I have shown that your calculation is wrong, and I do not need to propose an alternate value of total emissivity to do that.

Yes, I have spent a great deal of time on this blog in regards to the mass of one CO2 molecule. Sadly it has been to little success. Everybody most certainly does not know that one molecule has a mass of 44.01g. What everyone, including myself, who has even a cursory understanding of molar mass and the periodic table knows is that the molar mass of CO2 is 44.01g/mol. That together with the knowledge of what a mole is gets you the mass molecule.

Then you misstate my position. I never said I ignore the total emissivity, I stated I did not know the value. Besides that, not knowing the ultimate value of a thing does not preclude me, or anyone else, in being able to critique the calculations you try to do to get to it.

In my next article I will talk about the overlapping absorption spectral bands, and immediately after, I will send another article on the determination of the total emissivity considering the mean free path length and crossing time lapse of quantum waves.

Can anybody help me with a question on radiation? I instinctively believe that a cold body can’t transfer heat to a warmer body but it can radiate towads the warmer body. If the radiated wave back from GHGs in the atmosphere can’t be readsorbed and re-emitted by the surface, what does it do?

Can anybody help me with a question on radiation? I instinctively believe that a cold body can’t transfer heat to a warmer body but it can radiate towards the warmer body. If the radiated wave back from GHGs in the atmosphere can’t be reabsorbed and re-emitted by the surface, what does it do?

It resonates with the target molecule and is effectively re-emitted rather like being reflected at the speed of light. None of its energy is converted to thermal energy. I prefer to use the term “scattered” in order to avoid implying that it is either reflected (in the true sense of the word) or absorbed – which most people assume means it does some warming.

Now, when and why does it resonate? Well, the frequency distribution of a blackbody has a peak which is proportional to absolute temperature. Study carefully the first plot here http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/WiensDisplacementLaw.html and note that the plot for a warmer temperature always envelopes that for a cooler temperature. Hence radiation from a cooler source can only have frequencies which can resonate with those of a warmer body. So all such radiation never leaves thermal energy behind. In contrast, radiation from a warmer source will always have some frequencies (at the right) which cannot resonate with a cooler target. It is the energy in radiation with these frequencies which has to be retained and is thus converted to thermal energy. This is actually necessary for the Second Law of Thermodynamics to apply.

Hence spontaneous radiation from a cooler atmosphere cannot add thermal energy to a warmer surface. Since it cannot add thermal energy it cannot either increase the rate of warming of the surface in the morning or slow the rate of cooling on the evening.

Herein lies the collapse of the atmospheric radiative greenhouse conjecture.

“As Hottel diminished the partial pressure of the carbon dioxide, its total emissivity also decreased in such form that, below a partial pressure of 0.006096 atm-m and a temperature of 33 °C, the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide was not quantifiable because it was almost zero.”

You seem to be missing the point that it’s not the partial pressure p that’s important, it’s p*L.
To quote from literature: “In a Hottel’s chart, the total emissivity of a gas, averaged over all radiation wavelengths, is plotted against temperature for several values of the partial-pressure-beam-length product (PL).”
Clearly, the value you mention “0.006096 atm-m” is not p but p*L, as indicated by the units used. The highest value in the chart I have is 155kPa.m, which corresponds to a partial pressure of 0.00038 atm and L= 4km, good enough for a rough estimation and corresponding to an emmisivity of about 0.2 within a wide temperature range.

Regarding the use of astrophysical formulae, I fail to see how you can justify them in this context: CO2 molecules don’t re-emmit the absorbed heat immediately, and you don’t take into account conductive heat transfer to other air molecules. The idea that radiant heat from the surface would exit the atmosphere with a time constant of 4.2 milliseconds seems pretty wild.